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

Re: Is validity the real issue?

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 21:57:37 +0100
To: <maurizio@usabile.it>, <michele@diodati.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20051106155115.SM01216@Inbox>

I don't think HTML working group would be happy about this: this means put in the trash can all their work from 1999 to today :)
Qnd in name of what? For poor knowledge of markup?
----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Maurizio Boscarol"<maurizio@usabile.it>
    Inviato: 06/11/05 21.53.08
    A: "michele@diodati.org"<michele@diodati.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: Is validity the real issue?
      
    Michele, I agree with your premises, but I can't understand your solution.
    
    For my point of view, application/xhtml+xml mime type decrease the 
    chance of a page to be rendered: it will be rendered only if prefectly 
    well-formed.
    
    At the moment, a lot of pages won't be rendered. So I can't understand 
    how this would help accessibility. At the opposite, I'm evaluating the 
    idea that wcag 2.0 should reccomend to use text/html mime type (and 
    backward compatibility guidelines of Apendix C) for any page whose you 
    are unsure you can grant the present and future validity. You should 
    only use application/xhtml+xml mime type when you're absolutely sure 
    that nothing can go wrong. That's rarely the case.
    
    As you know, I personally think that something is better than nothing. 
    :) So, the XML specification that say that UA shouldn't attempt to 
    render invalid pages are wrong and against accessibility, because 
    decrease the chance of someone accessing something. But this is a 
    different topic: I just wanted to know if I understand your proposal.
    
    Maurizio
    
    Michele Diodati wrote:
    
    >I would propose to the group to examine another point of view about
    >validity issue.
    >
    >It seems to me that the real problem with requesting validity to
    >developers is the ability of browsers to compensate for lacking of
    >validity: they succeed in rendering even a web page with thousand of
    >errors within. Though there are many good reasons to publish pages
    >without (X)HTML errors, no one of these is decisive. A "&nbsp" at the
    >end of a page is enough to get invalid code; at the same time, today
    >the front page of The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> has 17
    >errors and I can nevertheless read it.
    >
    >I think that requesting validity as a basic requisite for
    >accessibility need something stronger than a vague possibility that
    >something goes wrong with an AT. As developers, we need such a
    >guideline that, if we do not apply it, the effect is immediately
    >visible and unequivocal. So, if we think validity is indispensable, a
    >solution could be to request, for every web page published, a
    >content-type of application/xhtml+xml. In that case, validity is
    >actually necessary: no validity no rendering of the page. (To address
    >old browsers incapability with a content-type of application/xhtml+xml
    >is always possible to create a server side switch for serving a
    >content-type of text/html to all the old user agents.)
    >
    >Best regards,
    >Michele Diodati
    >--
    >
    >----------------------------------
    >M i c h e l e    D i o d a t i
    >Via Pian due Torri 86 - 00146 Roma
    >Tel. 06 5503533 - Fax 06 233212132
    >http://www.diodati.org
    >----------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >  
    
        

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 20:54:36 GMT

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