RE: Summary of arguements FOR validity -- and another against -- and a third of alternatives

Carlos A Velasco wrote:
> Unfortunately, it seems that ATAG 2.0 thinks this issue is a hot
potato
>   and delegates this "standards conformance thing" to WCAG 2.0:
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#OtherDocs>
> 
> <blockquote>
> ...
> - Authors make use of the accessibility features of different format
> specifications, *use markup appropriately*, write in clear and simple
> language, and organize a Web site consistently. The "Web Content
> Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)", version 1.0 [WCAG10] or version 2.0
> [WCAG20], explains the responsibilities of authors in meeting the
needs
> of users with disabilities.
> </blockquote>

[Bob Regan] 

ATAG spent a lot of time wrestling with this issue. The language you
quote does not represent validity as a 'hot potato', but encourages the
thoughtful writing of code. The decision to allow for specialized markup
was deliberate and appropriate, IMHO. 

Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 15:54:34 UTC