- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:34:38 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 19 Jun, Maurizio Boscarol wrote:
> Valid code does not mean well structured code. We are always
> counfounding this two things.
I agree that this is confusing; let's see if we can't clear it up.
* Valid code means well structured code. That's what syntax checking
markup does: testing to see whether elements are correctly nested,
whether elements are placed inside appropriate other elements, and
so forth.
* Valid code does NOT, however, mean *appropriate* structure. It's
fully possible to write a document which is syntactically correct
but semantically void; not to mention valid but with entirely
inappropriate structure.
However: valid code means valid structure. This is a fact of the way
SGML-based markup languages work, and we need to accept it.
> I don't agree, because validity issues that can be automatically
> tested are often issues that aren't related with accessibility.
They certainly are - I still remember that unclosed A which made the
entire document one huge link. A quick validation would have caught
that issue, and saved quite abit of trouble. The author in that case
was an instant convert, you might say :)
> But if we cannot know if validity massess with accessibility, we
> cannot put it in p1.
But we must. We know this: invalid code MAY lead to a situation
where the user *cannot access the information at all*; this is - or
was - a criteria for p1.
Remember the example I mentioned; the unclosed A. That is a
showstopper as far as access to the content is concerned.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 21:34:45 UTC