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

RE: Validity as a technique

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:15:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4994@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

For the record, I am not comfortable with the role I seem to have fallen into as a spokesperson for why validity should be Level 1.  But in for inch, in for mile, as the expression goes.  Opinions expressed are my own and not reflect that of my employer.  Usual disclaimer text follows.  Blah, blah, blah.  If anyone else more lucid than I feels like stepping in, please feel free!

>> Isn't validity a necessary but not sufficient technique for some of our guidelines? 

Yes, agreed.

> I think this is good approach.

Great!

> However note that we do not specify anything as 
> necessary - just as sufficient.

That is a terrible shame.

> So necessary but not sufficient is not possible in
> the Guide Doc (which cannot specify new requirements).

Please clarify!  I thought we were talking WCAG 2 -- *NOT* the supplemental documentation?
Can we specify "necessary" in a TR or not?

> However, if validity is required to programmatically 
> determine something then it would already be covered.   

This is good so far...

> Several people have made this point - and it seems to 
> indicate that validity testing would be a very good 
> tool to use in achieving the goal of 'programmatically 
> determined'. 

No!  Endorsement as "a very good tool" is almost nothing.  That is what we have now with WCAG1.

Validity (or even well-formed-ness) being required as *one* necessary component of any success criteria that uses "programmatically determined" is fine.  This could be acceptable compromise number 6 by my count.
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 16:15:54 GMT

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