- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:27:06 +1000 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Neil Whiteley wrote: > > 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!!!! What I was trying to indicate, admittedly in an imprecise way, is that there are several aspects to a validity requirement, any one or combination of which could be included at level 1, with other aspects being reserved, if so decided, to level 2. 1. Document instances must conform to a DTD or schema. 2. The DTD or schema must be published. 3. The DTD or schema must be that of a markup language defined in a standard (W3C, Oasis, ISO or whatever). Each of these is separate and should be distinguished in any discussion of this topic. The question isn't a binary choice between requiring validity or not requiring it at level 1. Rather, there are different aspects to validity - validity to what? - that I think should be kept distinct.
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 05:27:14 UTC