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

Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:15:04 +0200
Message-ID: <42B92C18.3060102@ubaccess.com>
To: lisa@ubaccess.comR, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I can think of lots of reasons that validation is really important, but 
the two main ones are:

1, It means that groups like thoughs working on the DHTML road map that 
Becky mentioned will make a formal , published , DTD  (DTD - A short 
file that defines their terms).

If we did not have that then groups could band together with a chosen 
assistive technology, using a closed unpublished grammar, to make 
"accessible content" that works with that one assistive technology (say 
the market leader). If you do not happen to like that assistive 
technology, or it does not happen to address your access needs - well 
that is just market forces...


2, Assistive technology need to parse content to manipulate it for the 
user. The better they can do that  the better will be the user 
experience. Now some authors/tool make very innovative but bad mistakes 
that mess up the whole concept of adaptive content.

Validate and we stay OK

I think this is a really important one folks.

All the best
Lisa


Lisa Seeman wrote:

>
> Lisa Seeman wrote:
>
>> Becky, I think your premise hear that the DHTML road map will not be 
>> valid may be incorrect. The DHTML road map (worked on with IBM and 
>> the PF working group) is an example of the opposite, where this 
>> guideline has course the grammars that you need to be published, as 
>> an XHTML extension. Hence it will conform to formal grammars DTD or 
>> Schema- not in a long time, but in about a month or two after it was 
>> pointed out to the team that this was necessary.
>>
>> See comments in line
>>
>> Becky wrote:
>>
>>>       For example, The DHTML roadmap extensions that I and others 
>>> are working on    are meant to help accessibility. ..
>>>
>> We are
>>
>>>    working within the W3C to get this new technology fully supported 
>>> in the    specifications. But, that takes time and until that 
>>> happens I could not    conform to WCAG 2.0 if the validity 
>>> requirement was at Level 1.   WCAG 2.0    should not restrict 
>>> projects that are working to improve accessibility by    including 
>>> Level 1 requirements that do not always guarantee accessibility. 
>>
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, because of this WCAG 2.0  requirement, at level 
>> 1, an XHTML module will be published that conforms to the XHTML  
>> extension specification, that will enable all of the functionality of 
>> the current examples running with firefox. Note: XHTML is modular and 
>> easily extended - it will take one person a few days  to do so.  In 
>> other words this requirement  has made your work more useful 
>> resulting in the grammars being made available to all, and promoting 
>> harmonization/unity of accessibility techniques and practices.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 08:15:53 UTC

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