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 13:31:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4999@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "Maurizio Boscarol" <maurizio@usabile.it>, "Yvette Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> I'm not sure I fully understand what - validity as a necessary but 
> not sufficient technique for all the success criteria that require 
> something can be 'programmatically determined' -  means.

Even with the glossary, "programmatically determined" is horribly, horribly opaque.  Even for native English speakers.  Even for native English speakers who are familiar with 508 and WCAG1.  But that is a topic probably best left to another time and thread.

I am not sure the glossary is the best place to address this, but a solution to the question of validity as Level could be as easy as the following amendment:

<blockquote>
Programmatically determined means that the specific value can be determined in a standard, machine or software readable form.  For example, content must pass validity tests for the version of the technology in use (whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (DTD), or other tests described in the specification).
</blockquote>

> For example, in the case of table, the caption is programmatically 
> determined, but there is need to check if the caption is good...
> The same with alt attribute, acronym, abbr and every element inside 
> a page.

Yes, exactly correct!  The *omission* of a caption (or whatever) can be programmatically determine.  Okay, so maybe the language isn't the barrier I worry that it might be.  Not that I have any good ideas about how to address that if it is a problem...
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 18:31:43 GMT

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