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: Neil Whiteley <neil.whiteley@tag2.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:42:15 +0100
To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAIDllaWVPlkuX1m7OekKwzMKDAAAQAAAAVLzoHbBLMEqA+iuPZ6+upwEAAAAA@tag2.net> 

Hi Jason,

<Jason>
To the contrary, you could take one of the HTML 4 DTD's, add the extensions
and validate against it. You wouldn't even have to publish it in order to
meet a validity requirement; you would just have to create it and then
validate the document instances.
</Jason>

I'm not sure that I see the need to meet validity requirements via the back
door when XHTML (in whatever flavour) is available legitimately.

Besides which, WCAG 1.0[1] states *published* formal grammars as the
requirement. I don't see the same in the draft of WCAG 2.0[2] but I'm sure
that this must be an *oversight* that will be fixed in the next draft!!!!

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#use-spec 

Regards

Neil Whiteley
Tag2
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 23:42:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 02:51:21 GMT