W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: REF: 4.1 Move deprecated features

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:35:07 -0500
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040107173133.02a5fee0@localhost>
To: Don McCunn <Don@AbleWebEditor.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Don,

Please note that the latest draft of WCAG 2.0 Guideline 4.1 [1] says, "for 
markup, **except where the site has documented that a specification was 
violated for backward compatibility**, the markup has:
a. passed validity tests of the language (whether it be conforming to a 
schema, Document Type Definition (DTD), or other tests described in the 
specification)
b. structural elements and attributes are used as defined in the specification
c. accessibility features are used
d. deprecated features are avoided"

Thus, we understand that there are cases where deprecated or non-standard 
markup needs to be used.  The embed element is a good example:  since the 
object elements is not consistently well-supported, embed is commonly used 
to include multimedia.

Does this address your concerns?  Do you think that we need to clarify this 
further?  More attention will be given to the topic in the Techniques 
documents, particularly HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0.

Best,
--wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#use-spec
At 04:43 PM 1/7/2004, Don McCunn wrote:



>Re: WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint 4.1
>
>Excluding deprecated features is a major stumbling block for compliance 
>with the accessibility issue. It means that only strict HTML will pass the 
>test and that therefore any attempt to make web pages viable for older 
>browsers is extremely limited. This aspect of the checkpoint alone forces 
>Web Developers to choose between making Web Sites accessible to people 
>with disabilities OR people with older Browsers.
>
>As an example, in recent Web Conferences I've attended it has become 
>apparent that a number of large companies standardized on Netscape 4 and 
>are still using it. The need for support for this obsolete Browser is a 
>major concern for these companies. They've developed archival material 
>that will quickly become obsolete under the strict HTML Standard.
>
>It seems to me that accessibility should be about making the web 
>Universally accessible. Specifying that Web Pages pass validation tests 
>for existing standards should be enough. In my opinion forcing Web 
>Developers to comply with the Strict HTML Standard will make WCAG 2.0 
>obsolete before it is even published. It would certainly have that affect 
>for me.
>
>Sorry for not responding earlier but I am a new comer to working with 
>accessibility issues.
>
>Don McCunn

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/-- 
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:35:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:54 UTC