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: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 14:55:24 -0600
To: "'Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004301c5e24b$3ec85c70$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>

Hi Roberto,

   To be sure I understand.  You are saying that we should be requiring full
conformance rather than just validity?  

  Or are you suggesting some thing less than validity?

Thanks 
 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:44 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Summary of arguements FOR validity -- and another against --
and a third of alternatives


I think we are going wrong with FOR and AGAINST.

Gl 4.1 said:
"Guideline 4.1 Use technologies according to specification."

The problem are some:
- how can said in *any* level that for accessibility is possible to violate
specification?
- how we define specification? with the always used Flash example (Bob, i'm
no against you but is a real case), shall *win* w3c specification or vendor
specification? And where ends the vendor specifications? In the object
(flash, quicktime, java) or also in the object integration inside w3c markup
languages?

So, imho, the problem eventually are the requirements of gl 4.1, and not
markup validity.
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 20:55:30 GMT

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