W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: Guidelines - DTD

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 13:11:23 +0900
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <19980708131123V.mimasa@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au> wrote:

> One of the things I would like to have said, had I been a little more 
> awake, is that I think that compliance with a DTD is a priority one item, 
> for reasons outlined before by Daniel and Jason as well as myself.

Agree.  Actually, this is not just a guideline, but the requirement by
the HTML specification.  Otherwise, such document is invalid.

One thing I'm particularly disappointed is that none of the previous
versions of Page Author Guidelines themselves are conforming to the DTD.
This is really bad.  If we don't follow our guideline, who else would
follow?

Furthermore, "How to Release a W3C Technical Report" [1] says:

  [1] <URL:http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports.html>


 W3C Technical Reports Style

   .....

   The authoritative version of a document must be a conforming HTML 4.0,
   3.2, or 2.0 document. See the W3C HTML Validation Service. Technical
   reports should follow the Styleguide for Online Hypertext as well.

   A technical report must not have any broken links.

   Bear in mind that our reports are used as world-class primary
   reference material. Readability across a wide variety of browsers and
   platforms is far more important than using jazzy features. At some
   point, what we write becomes History.

 
WAI Accessibilty Guidelines should indeed be world-class primary reference
material.  We must be very serious about the markup of our guidelines.
Otherwise, people will be dubious of our work.

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 1998 00:11:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT