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: Livio Mondini <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 16:51:42 +0100
Message-ID: <001301c5e220$d32fc040$01fea8c0@nautilus>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

 2005/11/5, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>:
> If a page isn't rendered, than it wouldn't pass any
guideline... you
> don't need a specific validation guideline: the system
simply doesn't
> work at all! And, according to principle 1, the content is
NOT
> perceivable: failed! It's so simple. (1)
Is simple? No, is wrong.  This page is rendered and
assistive technology work
properly, but only in a browser on one operating system, or
maybe in a
particular version of a browser. This is the problem, not
principle 1.
Principle is universal, i think, not version related. Your
suggestion
is version related.

> Validation is just a different topic from accessibility,
sometimes
> related and sometimes not (and related doesn't mean "it's
the same"!).
Sure, why this declaration? is an element, sure. For you is
the same?
or someone has said this???

> We need to address only validation problems that cause
problems to
> accessibility: and obviously we should do this by covering
them with all
> the other guidelines.
A list of problems for all browser, all operating system,
all device
and relative combinations? Sure? This is your solution?

> That said, validation can be a useful way for developers
to check their
> work, but not a legal criterium to check accessibility,
Validation is 1 criterium on 22, not the only. Only you
think on that.

Livio
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 15:53:28 GMT

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