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

RE: Summary of arguements FOR validity -- and another against -- and a third of alternatives

From: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:21:40 -0000
To: "'Livio Mondini'" <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001601c5e1ea$549b54f0$0200a8c0@PaulLaptop>

       ...If it's possible to have a fully accessible website that
      contains invalid code, how can it be an accessibility issue?
      The fact
      is, it's not.
      It is not true, try to load invalid code on any (assistive
      or not) device ...

[Paul] Can you please provide a real example of an assistive technology
doesn't work as a result of invalid code, where all WAI guidelines pass?
As I said, if an assistive technology doesn't work properly, it must
fail at least one guideline, resolve the issue that causes that failure
and you have no need for validity.

Kind regards,
Segala M Test
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 09:21:37 UTC

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