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

Re: Balancing the myth-busting.

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:34:04 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a9205080911346d2e1fa2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "lguarino@adobe.com" <lguarino@adobe.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hi Loretta,

On 09/08/05, lguarino@adobe.com <lguarino@adobe.com> wrote:
> Gez, even if validity is important for accessibility, it is still
> weaker than accessibility. Accessibility puts more constraints on the
> author than just validity. So comparing a validity checker to an
> accessibility checker is still apples and oranges. Especially when
> your point is that the automatic checkers are missing accessibility
> problems.

Some accessibility validators do not check validity, even though
validity is a priority 2 level requirement for WCAG 1.0. At the
moment, validity is considered part of accessibility, and as the
markup validator is an automated checker, to my mind, it belongs in
the results. To me, it's more like comparing a big apple with a little
apple rather than apples and oranges. I appreciate people's mileage
will vary on this issue, in which case they can discard validity if
it's not important to them.

Best regards,


Supplement your vitamins
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:34:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:55 UTC