I was looking again at 5.1 and I am a bit confused. Are requiring that all HTML passes the HTML validate for minimal conformance or level two? I always go for valid HTML - but - in my experience getting a page to be valid is more work then the rest of WCAG put together -a lot of the errors are trivial, but time consuming to repair. do we want to do this? Is there a way to categories the type of error, like we have with other checkpoints - say something like, were important content could be lost, or the site layout confusing. People may want to try putting their sites through html validate. - It can be a bit of a shock, even pages after you have run tidy. All the best , Lisa Seeman UnBounded Access Widen the World Web lisa@ubaccess.com www.ubaccess.com Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233 Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 03:06:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT