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

Re: Validity

From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 19:38:48 -0800
Message-Id: <647E50A9-BAFF-48D0-8880-9FFED65C6BD4@bestkungfu.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
To: Bruce Bailey <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
On Nov 5, 2005, at 7:07 PM, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
> I recognize that were validity to become a requirement overnight  
> (which it could, I suppose, in some places) it will cause  
> significant discomfort to the likes of Matt May and Bob Regan.

I strongly object to and am personally offended by this statement.

I must point out that my position on this has not changed since I was  
working for W3C, an organization which, if I remember correctly, had  
something or other to do with validity and accessibility.

Further, if anything, my position is counter to my own interests. It  
is in my best interest as a skilled author of HTML (and part-owner of  
a company which sells these services) for WCAG 2 to have a minimum  
requirement of validity, because I am one of very few developers who  
is capable of reliably achieving that standard. I maintain this  
position because of my awareness through the time I spent working on  
standards and interacting with various segments of my own field that  
a large majority of people wouldn't have the first clue how to create  
valid content.

-
m
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 03:38:59 GMT

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