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: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:40:16 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920506201640381d3275@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

On 21/06/05, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it> wrote:

> I know that potential problems with ampersand exist. But most of the
> time they don't come up. They aren't surely broken: they may be broken

Most of the time isn't all of the time. Why are you insisting on 100%?
Not everyone has a visual impairment. Not everyone has a mobility
problem. Not everyone has a cognition problem. We're considering
factors that are most likely to hinder accessibility. Invalid
documents can and do hinder accessibility. Valid documents aren't a
guarantee for accessibility, but they do offer a solid foundation to
build accessibility on.

> I can't figure out in which situation the content of a non-closed
> metatag or a <p> among other p-s, or an invalid attribute, result in
> content not being accessible.
> Apart from xml transformation and application/xhtml+xml mime type, I
> mean. Any suggestion? :)

Is validity restricted to unclosed meta tags, or paragraphs? If so, I
would support a proposal that documents must be valid according to
their specification, with the exception of closing meta tags or
paragraphs. If not, then the following would be inaccessible.

<img src="/img/ir.jpg" alt="Interest Rate"78%>

There are far too many validity mistakes that could result in
accessibility issues to list. If this mistake is covered by another
guideline, there will be others that won't. So it comes down to what's
a serious mistake and what's a little mistake. Shall we start to make
a list?

Best regards,

Gez

-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 23:40:21 UTC

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