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

RE: Validity

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 18:30:08 +0100
To: <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>, <r.castaldo@iol.it>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511051224546.SM03100@Inbox>

Sorry,
How can they conform to double A if code is not valid? (wcag 1.0 checkpoint 3.2).
If you certificate these web sites for wcag conformance and don't check for validity, you grant a certification for level AA that is not true.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Paul Walsh"<paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
    Inviato: 05/11/05 18.11.49
    A: "'Roberto Castaldo'"<r.castaldo@iol.it>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Validity
      
    Firstly, why do you amongst others, feel that the only testable
    guidelines are those that are done using tools? 
    
    We certify sites every week and if we were to failed them as a result of
    invalid code, the vast majority of them would fail - even though they
    meet all Double-A and two checkpoints in Treble-AAA. I hope you're not
    trying to tell me that these sites should fail the basic level of
    accessibility just because they contain invalid code? If you are, then
    you don't live in the real world. I will reiterate, introducing validity
    to the lowest level of conformance (whilst ignore the fact that a site
    can be accessible) will alienate people from using the WAI, me included.
    
    
    What's important in all of this is that machine readable labels can
    cover guidelines that aren't necessarily categorised, so users can
    choose the most important ones for their requirements. 
    
    Please refrain from telling me to stop using a specific reason for my
    side of the argument. I've seen this debate go on for long enough and am
    aware that it has been used. Common sense tells me that if a site meets
    Double-A standards and is very user friendly, you can't fail it just
    because the code doesn't pass a test using a tool.
    
    Kind regards,
    Paul
    Segala
    
          -----Original Message-----
          From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
    On
          Behalf Of Roberto Castaldo
          Sent: 05 November 2005 16:37
          To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
          Subject: 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
    
        

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 17:27:05 GMT

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