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

Re: Validity

From: Livio Mondini <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:00:16 +0100
Message-ID: <000301c5e158$da233800$01fea8c0@nautilus>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Maurizio wrote:
 Only this can give us criterium to decide what is to put
here or there.
In fact, I agree (and even Andrew Kirkpatrick agree, as you
can read)
that validation is good and better. The problem is "how much
is good and better when talking about accessibility in our
It's not a 0/1 question. I hope this is clearer than before.

WCAG 2.0 declare four principles:
1. Content must be perceivable.
2. User interface components in the content must be
3. Content and controls must be understandable.
4. Content must be robust enough to work with current and
future technologies.
 These four principles lay the foundation necessary for
anyone to access and use Web content.

All this points *require* valid code, where is the problem?
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 16:02:03 UTC

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