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

Re: Is validity the real issue?

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:16:27 +0100
Message-ID: <436FD23B.7040705@usabile.it>
To: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Jens Meiert wrote:

>>>>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.
>>>To stick with automotive metaphors, isn't this the same as saying
>>>"just drive, you do not need to know the traffic rules, because it
>>>might hinder you from driving"?
>>No, it isn't. The methaphor is unadequate. If you don't know traffic 
>>rules, you'll end crash and kill someone, for sure. If you miss some 
>>validation issue your page can still be accessible, and in many case it 
>>is: disabled people (and UA, and AT) can copy with it.
>No. There is also some probability that you cross the city unharmed, as
>there on the other side is the risk that an invalid page might fail in
>certain UAs. And this risk ain't quite low, as you need to anticipate a
>future where more and more UAs behave more and more strict. So that risk is
>definitely high, and the metaphor I used proves useful, I fear.

You're right. We'd better following the metaphor. You need a driving 
license to drive, even if you already can drive. That's the law.
We aren't making law or releasing licenses. We should address what is a 
real accessibility problem. Lack of validity itself isn't an 
accessibility problem. Better: it actually is only with 
application/xhtml+xml mime type, so we should cover that case. We should 
focus on how to find and eliminate barriers to access.

Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 22:08:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC