RE: Process request on validity

> Time to move on. We are not making progress here.

Agreed.  I still plan to respond to Gregg’s data call within the next twenty four hours.  I wanted to sleep on the fifteen reasons I came up with, but the file seems to have disappeared overnight.  I hate it when that happens. 

> I believe there may well be a middle ground here, 
> but I am not seeing anyone explore it. 

I, for one, would find the following middle ground results acceptable:

1)  Drop guideline 4.1 altogether, or provide *no* success criteria for the standard.  (Yes this is radical, but omitting reference to validity altogether IMHO is a better result than explicitly casting it as Level 2.)

2)  Small modification from earlier working draft,  keeping validity at Level 1 SC:
Except where the PAGE [not site] has documented that a specification was violated for backward compatibility or compatibility with assistive technology...

3)  Assurances from TBL (could be voice conversation relayed by Gregg or Judy) that he is okay with validity being Level 2 SC in WCAG 2.

> The group is resorting to a level of discourse that does
> not have positive consequences for accessibility, this 
> working group, or the other WAI groups. 

Part of the problem is that every time this comes up we table the discussion and plan to come back to it latter.  We have run out of the opportunity to post-pone.  It is not that consensus is impossible, just that it is difficult.