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

perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely!

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:24:33 -0400
Message-Id: <200506211924.j5LJObsa006971@mail1.magma.ca>
To: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

>>>> ...And I am not arguing one side or the other in what has now become a
religious debate. [over P1, P2 validity]

Since it has become a religious debate, I might as well join the discussion
:-)

I've been reading the great points from both sides (P1 and P2) and they are
argued with great enthusiasm and skill...

When a parent sees to kids arguing over a toy the parent sometimes does
something radical. He/she takes away the toy.

I would like to explore the possibility of the committee removing the
requirement for validity completely. 

Before *everybody* screams at me let me explain...Those who would like to
see validity at P1 say that a W3C spec like ours cannnot possibly allow for
invalid code, because it goes against the W3C requirement of valid code
(that is simplified synopsis). So if if the specs require valid code, why
are we getting into it, it is handled at a higher level.

The only reason we have it in at P2 (rather than leaving it to the
individual W3C technology specs), is that we don't believe that people will
follow the W3C requirement of valid code, and we think that validity is
worth mentioning because it facilitates better accessibility. It is in there
as a reminder that validity is required...But by putting it in at level 2 we
are getting into a terrible jam that we are implying validity is not
important. 

On the HTML techniques working group we got into a similar situation. The
WCAG 1.0 html techs said to use a DOCTYPE statement...but we found that the
HTML specs covered that, so we just left it up to people to follow the
technical specifications for the technical standard that they are
using...and we pulled it out of the techniques document...

So perhaps we could just take the requirement out completely. Removing the
requirement for validity completely and leaving it up to the authority
properly appointed to handle it (the spec itself), is the only way I see out
of the log jam.

David MacDonald 

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

 www.eramp.com 
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 19:24:44 UTC

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