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

Re: Validity

From: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 20:00:09 +0100
Message-ID: <003801c5e23b$24b29b80$0201a8c0@inekem>
To: "Paul Walsh" <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hello Paul,

You wrote today:
>but I wouldn't like it to be
> seen as a defacto checkpoint. I think it's great to help with
> accessibility but it ends up on the bottom of my list if all else equals
> accessibility anyway.

In my opinion is valid code not only important for accessibility but for 
operability too. So i easily can use another (AT)-platform for reading the 
same website when I need that.

When one firm can not make flash with accessible code, we should not permit 
this firm to use invalid code. So we open the gate for other firms  also to 
do. And when such firms will be taken over by Microsoft, the next version of 
IE will probably require proprietary code. And what then?

Of course a firm  can produce valid code for using flash or other 
applications and AT can be fixed for interpreting specifications correctly.

It is too crazy for words that a working group of W3C will not require valid 
code according specifications of W3C. Why are specifications really 

Ineke van der Maat
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 19:00:01 UTC

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