RE: Summary of arguments FOR validity -- and another against -- and a third of alternatives from Bailey, Bruce on 2005-11-08 (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from October to December 2005)

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 20:04:58 -0500
To: <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D499F@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>

Greetings Becky.

> I have stated my opinion and responded to comments on 
> this matter in the previous thread so I won't repeat it here. 

Okay, I will succinctly summarize:

> Thus, I can live with a requirement at level 1 that my code is 
> well-formed - that is good coding practice and can help 
> accessibility.   I can not live with a requirement for completely 
> VALID code at level 1.

Your clarification regarding xml (including xhtml) is all well and good.

What is your proposal for evaluating the “well-formed-ness” of HTML 3.2 and 4.01 content?

I am not aware of a widely accepted freely available automated measure for this.

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 01:07:31 UTC