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

Re: Strict/Transitional is [OT] Accessibility Tests For Stanca Act

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:29:14 +0200
To: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s68oa0lbwxe0ny@216-246-243.0506.adsl.tele2.no>

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:10:33 +0200, Johannes Koch  
<johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de> 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?

What are we, the "second guess the Italian Government's interpretation of  
the WCAG working group", or the "evaluation and repair tools working  
group"?

chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                     chaals@opera.com
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
      Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 18:29:13 GMT

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