W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:06:53 +0100
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <dcnnna$22p$2@sea.gmane.org>


"Wendy Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org> wrote in message 
news:6.1.2.0.2.20050727124458.04103868@localhost...
>
> 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?

No, because they'll continue to render invalid code, it's simply 
unacceptable to any user if it makes content inaccessible due to invalid 
mark-up, these technologies, if they ever become widespread, will either 
need to adopt proper error handling in their specifications, or remove the 
"don't render invalid code" requirement.

UAAG should not require validity or WF-ness to stop "best effort" rendering.

WCAG and ATAG should require validity (but maybe not at level 1), as 
predictable Object Models are required to ensure the authors intended 
meaning exists.

Jim. 
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 12:12:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:05 GMT