- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:01:48 +1000
- 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 UTC