W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:06:49 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0506142201470.7192@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> About 4.1 rationale:
>
> "Current WYSIWYG and CMS tools do not necessarily generate valid code, 
> making it difficult or impossible for many authors to meet this SC. (We 
> cannot force authors to do manual coding to conform to WCAG.)"

But we're more than happy to use crappy authoring tools as an excuse to 
permit further crappy markup. This is "until user agents" in drag, but 
it's *much worse*, since we've known what valid markup is since HTML was 
ratified in 1999.

Do you have any idea how far ahead the standardistas are on this topic, 
and have been for four years? You're proposing to permit 1990s-era tag 
soup for the lifetime of WCAG 2.

Do you even understand what you're doing? If you maintain invalid markup 
as a permitted option, CMSs will never be upgraded to produce valid code. 
You've given them an escape clause.

Great sellout job there, colleagues.

And here's another question:

Who in the room in Brussels is capable of using a manual editor-- complete 
with macros and presets-- to produce valid code in the first place? Do you 
even know how to do what you're saying is too hard to require? Probably 
not, right?

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --This.
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 22:07:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC