Hey now hold on just one second - I dont want this to turn into a slanging match, but i think you've taken just about everything I've said and shifted it to the absolute extreme, so lets just clear up a few things.
But it turns out that Gallielo's system is better at predicting where planets are going to be but if you want to know where stars are going to be then you are better off using Ptolemy's system. Until the US Navy stopped using the stars to navigate they were assuming that the earth revolved around the sun.
Okay, but not my point at all. The point was that everyone told Gallileo that the sun went around the earth. he went away and proved that it didn't. Sure he wasnt exactly right, nor was Newton when he came up with gravity - it was revised by Einsteins general relativity etc. But the point was that he challenged a previous conception, neigh what was considered a previous law , because he thought it was incorrect.
And don't try to tell me that it's morally permissible to go around taking white canes from blind people. And don't try to tell me that people who build buildings that are inaccessible to wheel chairs are being bold and innovative. We have laws against those sorts of things for a reason just as we have laws against inaccessible web pages for a reason.
Well I'm sorry but now I think you've lost the plot. I'm not even going to comment on the first two bits, and comment on the third by saying that it's not actually a law (even if it is called that) because it's not an offence to break it. And even if it were (so sue me if I'm incorrect), I made the point that a blind person would have no interest in my site because it is a photograph site. If there was a building which just had stairs in it, nothing else, then there would be little point in including wheel chair access to the building because the stairs make it inaccessible to the wheel chair user. by the nature of my site, it is inaccessible to blind people, and I apologise for that, but if you can tell me what teh "law" on making photographs available to blind people is then I will happily comply. Do I have to include a three hundered word description of every photo? What about the people who are disadvantaged by not having access to the internet? maybe I should send copies of the page (in braille of course also, and large print for the partially sighted, and an audio version) to everyone in the world so that noone is disadvantgaged. Then of course I'd have to translate it into every language possible, and include biographies of everyone who is included in the photos so that noone is disadvantaged by not knowing who is in the photograph. My point is that yes I agree that sites should try their best to accommodate everyone, but that's not always possible, and if every site on the internet had to adhere to all the riles before it was allowed to be published then the internet would have died many years ago.
When I studied Mathematics at the Polytechnic we certainly didn't believe that the laws were meant to be broken. We were trying to find the laws
Maths has developed so much in the past century becasue of people using previous techniques where they hadn't been used before. The links between vastly different areas of mathematics, thought hitherto completely unrelated, have come about by people saying "humm, wonder if this will work there..." The link between modular forms and elliptical equations for example thrust number theory forward enabling mathematicans to prove the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and therefore also proving Fermats last theorem. I at no point said that laws were meant to be broken - I just said that occasionally using a law somewhere where its not been used before or in a way not considered before can lead to great steps forward.
but you do err in saying that we should eschew the rules
And I didnt say that, I said that people shouldnt be afraid to try stuff for fear of breaking the rules.
And you are a immoral and cruel person if you think that blind people ought not to be able to use the internet.
And at this point you slip into the realms of the ridiculous.
As for HTML goodies, it is a site that encourages people to make their own sites, to enable previously incapable people to publish the information they want to publish on the internet. In effect, it gives people the power of free speech, and what could be more fundamental than that. Yes it would be great if every page adhered to every law set out by the w3c, yes it would be great if everything was accessible to everyone in every part of the world, but things shouldnt be shunned for failing that. Otherwise the internet would be full of people ranting about how other peoples sites dont conform to article 3 seciton 4 of the w3c code blah blah blah.
Oh wait a second, it is...