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

Re: Accessibility Tests For Stanca Act

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:08:18 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20060330120118.034a6658@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

At 11:10 30/03/2006, Johannes Koch wrote:

>Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>
>>At 16:29 29/03/2006, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> > One of the things I found surprising is the requirement for web
>>> > sites to validate as 'strict'.
>>>
>>>It's not that surprising, it's effectively also a requirement for
>>>WCAG 1.0 "AA" compliance (checkpoints 3.2 and 11.2).
>>
>>Hmm. I don't see the word "strict" in those success criteria.
>>For conformance to WCAG 1.0 you can still use the transitional DTDs
>>and avoid their deprecated features.
>
>Well, yes. But why do you reference a transitional document type when you 
>use only markup from the strict one?

- Legacy data;
- clean up deprecated markup without touching doctype (for whatever reason, 
e.g. save some time to fix more important things);
- allow adding deprecated attributes by means of JavaScript (so document is 
still valid with transitional DTD but not with a strict one);
- most importantly, "avoid" in WCAG 1.0 is a guideline for developers, not 
a prohibition regarding markup (unlike WCAG 2.0, WCAG 1.0 does not have 
success criteria for content, but only guidelines, i.e. advice, to developers);
- other reasons?

Regards,

Christophe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:08:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:26 GMT