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

Re: 5.1 and control of the logo usage

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:44:57 +0200
Message-ID: <002d01c27a68$16e614c0$5ffefea9@NBRSIWA>
To: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>
To: <W3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:05 PM
Subject: 5.1


> 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 ,
>

Hi Lisa,
i think is important to have a valid HTML/XHTML code for level 1 because, as
experience in our webprofessional association, a web professional MUST
create standard code for web sites.

This is a requrement that we ask to all our member and this will be a must
for the respect of WCAG 2.0, due the mission of W3C.

Also, i think that we need also to create a section in guidelines about the
"abuse" of the WAI Level 1,2,3 Claim... We need to set the possibility to
check and ask for logo removal for web sites that declares accessibility
level that is not reached because this could cause problems of "emulation".

What did the group think about
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 03:45:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT