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

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

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:40:58 +0200
Message-ID: <42B745FA.7000205@usabile.it>
To: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Gez Lemon wrote:

>On 20/06/05, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it> wrote:
>  
>
>>faster and ram costing less, I can't see a reason for browser to not try
>>to correct little code errors. But this is a sort of religious argument,
>>I know.
>>    
>>
>
>What's a little code error? With the permutations of possible "little"
>errors, little ends up becoming very significant. Significant to the
>point that some vendors have decided not to attempt it, and ride on
>the back of a user-agent that is prepared to attempt it.
>  
>

I started making examples of little errors. A language attribute in a 
script tag. An ampersand not escaped. A meta tag not closed. A paragraph 
tag not closed among others.

Other (little, as I can see) errors you can find in pages of Judy 
Brewers interview that Roberto posted.

What kind of accessbility problem do this kind of errors have?

I agree that it's difficult to sort the code errors regarding their 
impact on accessibility. But I think some errors are worse than others. 
Presentational tags and attribute are bad for accessibility. Examples 
like the one I made are fare less problematic.

Maurizio
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 22:32:10 UTC

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