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

Re: Validity

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:09:50 +0100
To: <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20051104060362.SM00784@Inbox>



----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Christophe Strobbe"<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
    Inviato: 04/11/05 11.54.12
    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: Validity
    
    
    Isn't this an element of "practical reality" that can be used as an 
    argument against requiring valid code at level 1? How does using <embed> 
    harm accessibility? Should WCAG ban content just because it uses a certain 
    technology or because the content (in spite of accessibility features of 
    the technology) is inaccessible?

Roberto:
So should wcag authorize dtd violation? Should this be a precedent of a Vendor choice that require to modify web standards for support proprietary elements?
   Christophe;
    Based on what you write above, it is not "Microsoft instead of Macronmedia" 
    but "Microsoft and Macromedia" because the former company is responsible 
    for MSAA.
   
Roberto:
Yes this is true, like the choice of MM to use embed. So u would like validity at level 2 or 3 so all the "soup" can be used?
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 11:06:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT