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: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:27:29 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20060331101947.030151c0@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org


Christophe Strobbe wrote:
<blockquote>
Deprecated features was not the best example to choose for my argument
(but it's what started the thread).
However, take a look at CP 3.3: "Use style sheets to control layout and
presentation."
Every user agent has a built-in stylesheet or presentation, so you could
argue that the content always passes the checkpoint even if the developer
fails process-wise.
</blockquote>

Jon Ribbens responded:
<blockquote>
I don't get you. That interpretation is clearly ridiculous, and
although the WCAG 1.0 may not often be a paragon of clarity and
precision, if they had meant a particular checkpoint to read
"this checkpoint is redundant and may never be failed no matter what
the content", I'm sure they would have said so.
</blockquote>

I understand why you find it ridiculous, but normative documents
have to be unambiguous without our own guesses about the intention
of the WCAG Working Group. This is one of the reasons why the WCAG WG
spends so much time on closing potential loopholes in the WCAG 2.0
success criteria and the glossary. I know at least one success criterion
that was removed when it appeared that it was unreasonable to implement
when all loopholes were removed (in GL 3.1: meaning of each word...).

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 Friday, 31 March 2006 08:25:54 GMT

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