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

Re: 5.1

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:01:48 +1000
Message-ID: <15798.22380.351320.532696@jdc.local>
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
CC: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Lisa Seeman writes:
 > 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?

Yes, definitely, and no I wouldn't classify validity errors. The
document is either valid, or it is not. As an illustration of the
problem, Emacspeak supports the pre-processing of web pages by an XSLT
transform to improve accessibility. The more invalid the content is,
the worse the results are likely to be - often causing the XML/HTML
parser to crash. Of course, the tool developers could work around the
problem, but obviously this would involve more work.

At level 2 I think the requirement should be one of validity. Invalid
documents also tend to be poorly designed in other respects. Of
course, given a valid document a tool can make assumptions (based on
the DTD or schema) regarding its structure. An accessible document
should be predictable in this respect so that it can be transformed
more easily.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 04:02:05 GMT

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