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

Re: Validity

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:06:47 +0100
Message-ID: <436B9527.6000609@usabile.it>
To: Livio Mondini <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I can't see the answer to my question. What do we mean to put in level 1 
of priority?

The topic is better explained here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance

I took that as level 1 success criteria. And that for me doesn't require 
validation. We can fulfill the L1 criteria even without bothering with 
validation issues.

But, because it's a matter of interpretation, maybe this may need to be 
clarified in a unambiguos way (or may be not: for me it doesn't). This 
is what I'm talking about, and what I think validation discussion is 
related to.

And no-one (look, no-one!) listed his or her reason to have validation 
in L1...
That sounds strange, because I think that is what makes the difference. 
It's like we want to miss the point...

Maurizio


Livio Mondini wrote:

>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
>validation
>is good and better when talking about accessibility in our
>guidelines"?
>It's not a 0/1 question. I hope this is clearer than before.
>
>Livio
>WCAG 2.0 declare four principles:
>1. Content must be perceivable.
>2. User interface components in the content must be
>operable.
>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 16:54:55 GMT

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