Re: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

Matt May wrote:
> Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:
> 
>> If an authoring tool generates xhtml and it's no valid, when served as 
>> application/xhtml+xml some browsers end the page execution: this means 
>> no accessibility for all.  
>>
> Which is why validity doesn't need to be in the WCAG spec to satisfy 
> XHTML. In XHTML, being valid (or at least well-formed) is an 
> architectural constraint: you can't fail to do it and still be usable in 
> any form. It's as useless to require it in WCAG as it is to require in a 
> building accessibility document that front doors aren't built 20 feet 
> off the ground.
> 
> That said, it's well in scope for ATAG 2, since it's the only way we 
> know that the final output will be rendered no matter how the server is 
> configured.

I'm not sure how what you say in the second paragraph is different from 
the first. Will you be on the call?

-Jan