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

Should validity be P1 or P2? (was Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers)

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:13:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4710@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

My suspicion is that we frame this question plainly, it will be obvious that we don't need to ask it.  I understand that validity only applies to HTML and that for XHTML well-formed-ness might be more applicable and for other Web content, things are every trickier.  I am going to stick just with HTML for now.  I would also like to assume that the final analysis we only end up with P1 and P2.

> "Should validity of the language used to structure content¸ as
> well as make semantic constructs explicit, be a priority one 
> (highest) or a priority two (second highest) in WCAG 2?"

The problem with the above is that it will not be obvious to the intended audience of the question exactly how many priorities there are.  If there are ten or a hundred, being "second highest" sounds great.  So how about this wording:

The W3C WAI is in the process of updating their most important and public Technical Report, the Web Contents Accessibility Guidelines.  Should the updated WCAG reference other settled W3C standards, such as basic HTML validity, with their highest formal level of recognition, or their lowest?

** Off topic, is the list archive broken?  It currently ends on 15 June.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 16:13:34 UTC

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