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

Re: WCAG 2.0 Test Suite

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:52:24 -0500
Message-ID: <037501c4d87e$890ac5c0$e29a968e@WILDDOG>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Fully agree with Gez. We need to refer to XHTML 1.0 Strict...
>
Yes. I'll leave them as transitional for now but will change them to strict
as we review each test.

However, the doctype for some of the example test files may have to remain
as transitional because these files contain examples of bad HTML.

Thanks for your comments.

Cheers,
Chris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
To: "Gez Lemon" <gl@juicystudio.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 Test Suite


>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gez Lemon" <gl@juicystudio.com>
> To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 Test Suite
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think the test suite would be better if the DOCTYPE of the examples
> HTML
> 4.01 Strict rather than a transitional DOCTYPE. I appreciate that a
> transitional DOCTYPE is a legal DOCTYPE, but the spirit of a
> transitional
> DOCTYPE is to help developers make a transition from HTML 3.2 to either
> HTML
> 4.01, or XHTML 1.0. Also, the examples I've looked at mix XHTML in an
> HTML
> transitional DOCTYPE.
>
> Roberto Scano:
> Fully agree with Gez. We need to refer to XHTML 1.0 Strict, instead of
> the "old" HTML 4.01, otherwise how can we help te evolution of the www?
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 14:53:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT