dive into mark

In private email, in response to my response to Dave about publication formats, Dave replies (in full, verbatim):

So, if I read this correctly, there’s no way that Garrity could *not* be a snake oil salesman.

If you were ruler of the universe, there would be nothing he could do that you would approve of.

Is this correct?

Dave

The message was also CC’ed to Steven Garrity, whom I’ve never heard of. Perhaps this is someone Dave linked to recently, I don’t know. Suffice to say that I have no idea why I deserve such a vitriolic response over what I considered a very civil, very reasoned argument (in summary: “you can publish in as many formats as you want, but in the long run, your permanent weblog archives are what people (and search engines) link to and read, so you should make them as accessible as possible”).

I have been very consistent in my arguments:

• Universal accessibility of content is an important goal for web design.
• The simplest way to achieve this (without expensive content management systems or complicated browser-sniffing scripts) is with CSS and well-structured semantic markup.
• Personal weblogs are the perfect breeding ground for experimenting with these leading edge technologies, because weblogs are not subject to the normal commercial pressures of deadlines or Netscape 4-era compatibility requirements.

Furthermore, I have eaten my own dog food — everything I’ve advocated on this site, I have already achieved on this site. I know the pitfalls of writing cross-browser stylesheets. I know what it takes to make Greymatter spit out strict XHTML. I know exactly how much work it takes to achieve Bobby AAA certification. And I’ve shared all of that knowledge with everyone, free of charge. Anyone who doesn’t appreciate it, please stop reading.

§

Respond privately

I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)

§