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: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:50:21 -0700
Message-ID: <7DF35A0B5F67E84B9095C21C8A976418052818B8@RED-MSG-33.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <neil.whiteley@tag2.net>, <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Yes: contractual constraints, followed by market saturation.  If one
cannot through contract or availability assume UA that can properly
render xhtml then it is not an alternative to html.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Neil Whiteley
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:04 PM
To: Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of
resolutions from last 2 days)


Hi Becky,

<Becky Said>
The DHTML roadmap technology is based on XHTML and Lisa has pointed out
that
there is a way to extend the specifications for XHTML
</beck>

Is there any reason why you would need to deliver this functionality via
HTML when a perfectly valid alternative is available in XHTML.

The correct tool for the job is surely XHTML plus you have the added
bonus
of a syntactically correct and valid document. There is a reason why
XHTML
was developed as a specification and this is a good example.

Regards,

Neil Whiteley
Tag2

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf
Of Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
Sent: 22 June 2005 19:54
To: Tina Holmboe
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of
resolutions
from last 2 days)


<from my previous post>
> support new technologies. I am just against requiring it at level 1
> in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines since validation against
> a specification does not always improve accessibility and may inhibit
> innovation in the short term.

<tina asks>
  Could you please elaborate on that last point there? I'm afraid I am
  confused as to how ensuring the correct syntax can inhibit innovation?
</tina>

I've brought up the DHTML roadmap as an example. It creates widgets
using 
JavaScript that can be negotiated with the keyboard arrow keys just like
a 
client application.  The DHTML roadmap technology is based on XHTML and 
Lisa has pointed out that there is a way to extend the specifications
for 
XHTML.  That is good and something that is being pursued.  But, I can
also 
make this technology work in HTML. It relies on using tabindex on <div> 
and <span> tags to set focus programmatically to those elements.   In
HTML 
4.01 the tabindex attribute is not valid on <div> and <span>. I consider

these widgets "innovative" because they can be used to improve 
accessibility but, with a validation requirement at WCAG level 1 I could

not claim conformance. 

I can also think of other web applications that use the tabindex
attribute 
and JavaScript to set focus to certain HTML parts of the page.   For 
example, an application that hides or shows a certain part of the page 
based on a user selection.  Yes, I know that is a controversial behavior

within this group but I can make such an application accessible and 
usable. 

I can live with validation at level 1 as long as I am given an "out" if
I 
violate the specification for accessibility or usability reasons. But, I

am concerned that the exception may provide a hole that can be used for 
the wrong reasons as well thus making it moot. 

Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                       
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 19:50:30 UTC

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