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

RE: why validation in p1?

From: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:14:14 -0800
Message-ID: <DC9D05204B1E16419D62C12561C93221063B68D7@p01exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Maurizio Boscarol" <maurizio@usabile.it>, "W3C WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

The issue is not validity, but what guidance we provide to authors when
support for valid breaks done. 

What happens if interoperability with AT is disrupted by code that is
designated as valid? Given the growing number of technologies out there,
and the AT communities genuine struggles to keep up, this is not mere
hyperbole. 

How does the group want authors to handle these circumstances? 

Cheers,
Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Maurizio Boscarol
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:06 AM
To: W3C WAI
Subject: why validation in p1?


Dear wcag-ers,

We should now have a large horizon on arguments against putting 
validation in Priority 1.

But the discussion this way is biased. Can anyone that sostain the 
opposite varsion list his or her arguments to put validity just in 
priority 1? At this point of the discussion, I can't even think at
one...

Thanks!

Maurizio
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 15:14:57 GMT

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