Re: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

Hi Jim,
I wanna only make you note that ATAG 1.0 at guideline 2.2 require valid code generation at level 1:
"2.2 Ensure that the tool automatically generates valid markup. [Priority 1]
This is necessary for user agents to be able to render Web content in a manner appropriate to a particular user's needs."

Also I suggest to read the guideline
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/#gl-language-support
Guys, is sooo difficoult to said: "hi! For vendor-tools conformance, that means promotion of wcag/atag logos, we need to Move validity at level 2".

You are saying that an user agent should identify all the possible errors and fix them? 
Tell this to people that work with xslt for represent, for eg. Longdesc url, etc. (and that require well-formed code).

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Jim Ley"<jim@jibbering.com>
    Inviato: 02/08/05 12.06.53
    A: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org"<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft
    
    
    
    "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. 
    
    
    
    
    
    

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

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 19:32:15 UTC