- From: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:14:14 -0800
- 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 UTC