W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

5.1

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:05:48 -0700
To: W3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <003201c27aae$129d1da0$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>
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) 675-1195
Received 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