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?

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?
    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.
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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC