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

Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:44:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4707@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "Matt May" <mcmay@w3.org>

Matt, I must say you are doing an admirable job of arguing for the loyal opposition.  I am sure you think you are being pragmatic.  It is my expectation that since the position that validity should remain P2 is the status quo you will get some addition help.  It is my hope that this might allow you the opportunity to debate for the home team, even if you only do so initially as an academic exercise!

Allow me to try and paraphrase what seems to be your strongest argument, and then draw a parallel, which I think illustrates how weak it is.

(1)  We can't require validity to be P1 because we know that is not *really* necessary.  After all, one can find many of examples of invalid pages that are plenty accessible.

(2)  We can't require the presence of ALT attributes on images to be P1 because we know that is not *really* necessary.  After all, one can find many examples where the root file name is plenty meaningful.

The allocation of limited resources (time, energy, good will, etc.) going towards validity instead of accessibility is your second best argument.  I will get to that latter.
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 12:44:34 UTC

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