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: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 22:24:42 +0100
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511051618296.SM01212@Inbox>

Hi Gregg,
What i try to focus is how we want to apply guideline 4.1 (Use technologies according to specification):

- if technologies follow specification, valid code should Be at level 1
- where exist a DTD, for gl 4.1 the developer should respect it.

What i ask is that there will be no SC that said: "you can violate dtd in the name of accessibility" due that the reality would be "you can violate dtd in the name of AT bugs"

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Gregg Vanderheiden"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>
    Inviato: 05/11/05 21.55.24
    A: "'Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)'"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Summary of arguements FOR validity    -- and another against  -- and a third of alternatives
    
    
    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.
    
    
    
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 21:21:40 GMT

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