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 13:59:51 +0100
To: <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511040753937.SM00784@Inbox>

I wanna said only that authorize violation of other w3c spec. will difficulty have wcag 2.0 that pass in AC Representative vote.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Christophe Strobbe"<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
    Inviato: 04/11/05 12.58.21
    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: Validity
    
    
    Hi Roberto,
    
    
    Christophe Strobbe wrote:
    <blockquote>
    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?
    </blockquote>
    
    At 12:09 4/11/2005, Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) replied:
    <blockquote>
    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?
    </blockquote>
    
    No, I don't want a precedent for the introduction of proprietary elements. 
    The previous draft guarded against the introduction of random elements or 
    attributes [1]. I could live with that L1 SC (possibly without the clause 
    "for backward compatibility").
    
    
    Christophe Strobbe wrote:
    <blockquote>
    Based on what you write above, it is not "Microsoft instead of Macromedia"
    but "Microsoft and Macromedia" because the former company is responsible
    for MSAA.
    </blockquote>
    
    At 12:09 4/11/2005, Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) replied:
    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?
    </blockquote>
    
    I find level 3 too low for validity, and people have mentioned practical 
    reasons for not requiring it at level 1.
    However, I object to the implication that this discussion is about validity 
    versus all kinds of "tag soup". It never was, but some people on this list 
    use this simplistic dichotomy to push their point of view on others; they 
    say: "Tag soup is bad, so it's stupid not to require 100% conformance to 
    the specification." They ignore examples of invalid code that does not 
    cause accessibility problems. They ignore the existence of other L1 success 
    criteria that work against certain types of "tag soup" (GL 1.3 L1 SC1: 
    "Structures within the content can be programmatically determined", GL 2.4 
    L1 SC1: "Navigational features can be programmatically identified"). They 
    ignore arguments and questions that question their own point of view. When 
    reason turns into bigotry, I withdraw from the discussion.
    
    Regards,
    
    Christophe Strobbe
    
    
    [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20041119/#use-spec
    
    
    -- 
    Christophe Strobbe
    K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
    Document Architectures
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 12:57:09 GMT

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