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

Re: Validity

From: Neil Soiffer <neils@dessci.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:32:13 -0800
Message-ID: <D1EFB337111B674B8F1BE155B01C6DD60DB783@franklin.corp.dessci>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I'm surprised that the arguments for allowing invalid documents seem to revolve around a technology.  My understanding is that the guidelines for WCAG 2.0 are suppose to be technology-independent.  Is it the case that other guidelines were accepted or rejected or placed at a certain level because some technology did not support the guideline?  It is certainly not hard to imagine that non-valid documents in other technologies (including non-valid flash) prevent proper functioning of the document in some UA, which affects all users of the document.
 
The HTML or XHTML techniques document is the proper place to address technology-specific issues such as using an embed tag.  As Gez mentions, perhaps some weasel words that allow for non-valid documents to be used until UAs conform to a spec would be a compromise.  Personally, I don't think that is necessary -- I see the "embed" argument as a baseline issue ("our baseline is HTML browsers that allow the use of <embed>") , but obviously, others see differently.
 
I also want to add my name to the list of people who have asked for the criteria for deciding what goes in level 1 or level 2.  How can there be rational debate on the subject without a policy on this?  I have a vague memory this was discussed before and such a criteria for what goes in levels 1, 2, and 3 were agreed upon, but I don't remember what they were.
 
Neil Soiffer
Senior Scientist
Design Science, Inc.
neils@dessci.com <mailto:neils@dessci.com> 
www.dessci.com <http://www.dessci.com> 
~ Makers of Equation Editor, MathType, MathPlayer and MathFlow ~
 
 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com <mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com> >
> To: "Bob Regan" <bregan@macromedia.com <mailto:bregan@macromedia.com> >
> Cc: "WCAG WG mailing list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Validity
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> On 04/11/05, Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com <mailto:bregan@macromedia.com> > wrote:
> > I believe there needs to be a mechanism whereby an author may deviat
> > from valid code for reasons specific to accessibility for the audien
> > defined in their own baseline.
>
> That would be a great start to working towards some kind of
> compromise, which I believe was the intent of guideline 4.1 before the
> meeting in Brussels. Would validity be considered acceptable if there
> was an exception for instances where non-conformance improved
> accessibility without degradation to other users?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gez
 
Neil Soiffer
Senior Scientist
Design Science, Inc.
neils@dessci.com
www.dessci.com
~ Makers of Equation Editor, MathType, MathPlayer and MathFlow ~
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 18:29:08 GMT

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