Scripsit Sander Tekelenburg:

> In my book letting a site hi-jack browser functionality would count
> as a browser bug.

Well, maybe, and browsers _could_ actually implement accesskeys in a
manner that does not do that, but they don't. The HTML specification is
naive in its assumptions, pretending that browsers could recognize Alt+F
as a shortcut for a page-defined accesskey, as if Alt+F were not bound
to some function in most situations (and that users could use
page-defined accesskeys and would want to do that).

> In that same book browser bugs should be repaired by
> browser vendors, not by web publishers.

The fundamental flaw is in the specifications. The best browsers could
do now is to stop recognizing accesskey attributes at all.

> The more web publishers use
> accesskey, the more users afected, the more likely browser vendors
> will bother to fix the bug.

You seem to advocate a catastrophe theory. According to it, should we
start pushing vendors into implementing at least HTML 2.0? That is,
should we use all the SGML features defined in specifications HTML 2.0
through HTML 4.01, like <title/foo/ for a title element? Or should we be
modern and use native XHTML, _without_ dirty Appendix C trickery, and
naturally sending application/xhtml+xml to everyone?

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/