Re: Checkpoint 3.2.5 - link to validators

I agree, and would add (4)where quality control is important it can be a
pretty foolish thing to do. But what I was really thinking of wass those
tools which are in fact publicly available as pieces of software, and as
models for a module which could be included in an authoring tool.

It would seem sensible to add the points you raise to a discussion of
these tools in a Techniques document.

Charles McCN

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Jan Richards wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > 
  > Checkpoint 3.2.5, dealing with Accessibility help, requires a link to
  > validation services.
  > 
  > I suggest that the use of validation should be a checkpoint within 2.1
  > "generate standard markup", and that the use of bobby-style accessibility
  > evaluation is largely covered already. However it is probably a good idea
  > to point to available tools in the techniques document.
  
  I agree that they should be mentionned, but tools should not rely on
  outside checkers to perform checks, since (1) these may become too busy
  if a large commercial product started linking users, (2) it won't help
  offline and (3) they are not integrated with correction.
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA