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

Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:50:46 +0200
Message-ID: <42B701F6.40703@usabile.it>
To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I think you answered so fast that you've hardly read my message, but, 
ok, you're the multitasking guy... :-)

Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:

>Following your consideration, seems that a text-only page should Be accessible :)
>  
>

Well, surely it isn't inaccessible.
I'm not sure to see your point.

>But my question is: we want to guarantee, as in the wai project request, accessibility for all or accessibility for some disabilities?
>  
>

And that what have to do with validation?

>Serving invalid code as xhtml cause inaccessibility by ua that support this racommendation: this is why is requested as priority 1, otherwise as I told before, we are making Jurassic Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
>  
>

I think you mean xhtml served with mime-type application/xhtml+xml. But 
it hasn't to do with accessibility guidelines, but with XML and UA 
specs. XML has to be valid to be parsed by compliant UA,*if* served with 
appropriate mime-type. Html don't.

I see this like an accessibility problem induced by w3c specs itselves. 
And it sounds a little bit ironic that we have to claim validity just 
because we said UA not to parse invalid pages...

Anyway, I've already specified in my messages that I was talking about 
text/html mime-type, that is far more accessible in nature than 
application/xhtml+xml mime-type, 'cause it doesn't force UA to break the 
parsing.

XML specs needs validation because they say so. It's a tautology. But it 
doesn't need all web content to be valid to be accessible.

Maurizio
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 17:41:59 UTC

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