W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > December 2006

Re: WebAIM's Accessibility Evaluation Framework

From: Vicente Luque Centeno <vlc@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:18:34 +0100 (CET)
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0612071414170.9358@violin.it.uc3m.es>



Hi,

Validity has something to do, but it is not all. For instance, the "font" 
tag is valid acording to XHTML 1.0 Transitional, but WCAG argues to 
replace it with CSS. List's type is in the same case. You have removed 
font tags from your web page and you have used CSS instead, which is OK 
(even though font is valid in XHTML 1.0 Transitional).

What is the difference with font tag and list's type attribute?

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

> Hi Vincente,
>
> Note that you are referring to the techniques not the guidelines. Please see 
> discussion of the issues that you are raising on the archives of WAI IG and 
> other lists. Also, the document type is XHTML 1.0 Transitional and not 
> Strict.
>
> Regards,
>  Shadi
>
>
> Vicente Luque Centeno wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>> 1.- Some deprecated HTML attributes (transtalable to CSS) remain (list's 
>>>> type)
>>> 
>>> Can you specify the deprecated attributes and a reference to the formal 
>>> specification?
>> 
>> Sure! :-)
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#list-bullets explains that the 
>> list's type can be better arranged with CSS. On the other hand, the "type" 
>> attribute from "ul" and "ol" elements has been deprecated on XHTML Strict 
>> 1.0 and the superseding XHTML versions. You will not be able to validate 
>> such attribute if you use 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Strict or any of the 
>> superseding XHTML versions. Please refer to 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_ul in 
>> order to see that the "type" attribute has been deprecated (it is no longer 
>> in the ATTLIST of list elements). You may argue that XHTML 1.0 Transitional 
>> is valid, but remember what "Transitional" means and the availability of a 
>> CSS rule achieving that effect. In fact, it is the ONLY error left in your 
>> web page in order to get XHTML 1.0 Strict validity, as explained at 
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Ftests%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=XHTML+1.0+Strict&verbose=1 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2.- Headings are improperly used (a h2 is used without a preceding h1).
>>> 
>>> I'm not aware that the DTD specification of XHTML 1.0 Transitional 
>>> requires this.
>>> 
>>> * <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Transitional>
>> 
>> It is not required in the DTD specification, but it is required at 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-logical-headings and 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#document-headers .
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>  Shadi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
>>> Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
>>> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
>>> WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
>>> Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
>>> 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
>>> Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>
> -- 
> Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
> Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
> WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
> Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
> 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
> Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
>
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 13:19:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT