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: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 07:53:58 -0800
Message-ID: <DC9D05204B1E16419D62C12561C932210640E1E2@p01exm01.macromedia.com>
To: "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


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 GMT

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