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: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:36:29 +0100
Message-ID: <436DF8CD.4030200@usabile.it>
To: Livio Mondini <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Livio Mondini wrote:

> 2005/11/5, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>:
>  
>
>>If a page isn't rendered, than it wouldn't pass any
>>    
>>
>guideline... you
>  
>
>>don't need a specific validation guideline: the system
>>    
>>
>simply doesn't
>  
>
>>work at all! And, according to principle 1, the content is
>>    
>>
>NOT
>  
>
>>perceivable: failed! It's so simple. (1)
>>    
>>
>Is simple? No, is wrong.  This page is rendered and
>assistive technology work
>properly, but only in a browser on one operating system, or
>maybe in a
>particular version of a browser. This is the problem, not
>principle 1.
>Principle is universal, i think, not version related. Your
>suggestion
>is version related.
>  
>

Why on the hell to use application/xhtml+xml mime type if you're less 
than sure that your page is valid and will always be? If you're using 
that mime-type, you're doing this at your own risk. You know that you 
must do valid pages to fullfill XML specs, before than principle 1, if 
you use that mime-type. I can't see the problem. You don't need a 
specific guideline for this. It's a tech specification, not an 
accessibility issue.

But if you want to use text/html mime-type, that I strongly encourage 
(*), you haven't to be forced to validity if this won't cause 
accessibility problem, of course.

M

(*) I think that the XML rule that want UA stop rendering invalid pages 
are against accessibility for the simple fact that they decrease the 
probability of the content to be accessed. So, until tools won't 
guarantee automatic check for validation of published pages and 
automatic correction for user data input, I can't see any advantage on 
using that mime-type. But this is another topic.
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 12:24:08 GMT

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