RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Wendy Chisholm"<wendy@w3.org>
     Please be careful.  Avoiding a requirement for validity in a WAI 
    specification is *not* the same thing as supporting a bad policy or 
    endorsing an inaccessible tool. 

Roberto:
Why not? Give atag or wcag level 1 to cms web-based or to authoring tools that generate code that cannot be rendered by user agents by people without disabilities isn't an accessibility issue? Are we joking?

Wendy:
 Reconsidering how ATAG and WCAG address 
    validity is *not* the same thing as saying, "invalid code doesn't effect 
    accessibility, please take 5 years worth of steps backward."

Roberto:
Moving it in atag 2.0 to level 2 from level 1 means exactly your quoted text, imho.
   
Wendy: 
    Some questions to consider:
    1. How likely is it that if ATAG and WCAG remove or reduce requirements for 
    valid code that tool developers will modify their tools to increase the 
    validity errors generated by their tools?

Roberto:
I would like less errors. Without requirements there will be a tag-soup evolution, new tags (proprietary), new accessibility problems.
Big companies like adobe and ms finally are moving to generate Valid code with their tools... And we go back of 5 years?

Wendy:
    2. What about forces outside of WAI? Aren't they likely to have a 
    larger/stronger effect on tools producing and consuming valid code?

Roberto:
Only an issue: europe require atag 1.0 and wcag 1.0 level 2. With this decision (but therevis consensus?) wai authorize that - at level 1 - is possible that the big audience of a web site cannot access to a website...

Wendy:
    3. As people migrate towards XHTML and other XML-based languages that 
    aren't even supposed to render invalid code, aren't validity issues likely 
    to decrease?

Roberto:
Sure, but wcag and atag are for html 4.01 transitional? Or the problem at point 3 is actual?
    
        
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 18:05:33 UTC