Re: Validity

Hi group,

i do not like any action in favour of tag soup, and I'm afraid we risk to do
that; the  problem, the real problem about tag soup, is that none of us is
really able to define what an hypothetical "good tag soup" may be; so it's
not possible to write a single guideline, or a tecnique that says how to
write good code without validating it.

Maurizio and Paul, we all know that a valid page can have terrible code (but
none has never said it, so please stop using this argument), so valid code
by itself is not enough, but it is one of the few anchors, one of the few
impartial and objective milestones which is testable by everyone and that
gives the best interoperability guarantee. That's why  valid code is the
best starting point for any web based project, and cannot be other than L1.

And what about the W3C compliant authoring tools shortage? That's the actual
situation of the market (Flash itself is not compliant, let's all admit it),
but W3C and WAI do not have simply to "shoot photos" of the market; W3C and
WAI must say how the future Web - and  consequently the future IT market -
should be in order to get the maximum level of accessibility for web
applications. If we only give a lazy look to the market's situation, web
developers will perceive that the actual context is ok, and none will be
pushed to create better web sites and authoring tools.

Finally, we all should also consider that WCAG (together with other W3C
recommandations) have also a great educational value, that's why we must
push the message that any web project should (not could) be based on W3C
guidelines.

My best regards,

Roberto Castaldo
-----------------------------------
www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
IWA/HWG Member
rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org
r.castaldo@iol.it
Icq 178709294
------------------------------------

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 16:36:39 UTC