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

Re: Validity

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 17:29:35 +0000
Message-ID: <e2a28a920511050929l5284b3f2y@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
Cc: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hi Paul,

> 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.

If they're invalid, then they couldn't pass all priority 2
checkpoints, as checkpoint 3.2 requires that documents validate to
formal grammars.

> 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.

I think it's also fair to say that the opposite will also be true if
validity isn't addressed at all.

Best regards,

Gez

--
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 17:29:49 GMT

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