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 21:17:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D49A2@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Please forgive my peevishness here...

> Omitting HTML validity at the guideline level would be acceptable to me.

Did you mean guideline level or SC level?  I missed the guideline referencing validity, so now I am worried.

> I think the language already in the guidelines document is sufficient guidance.

By “guidelines document” do you mean WCAG 2 working draft or the supplement techniques documents used for guidance?

<rant>
This touches upon another significant barrier.  I am fine with calling them Guidelines, that is what the G in WCAG stands for after all.  And I understand the point that they technically are not standards, despite how useful writing them as if they were might be.  And the high level principles and low level success criteria is genius.  But using the actual term “guidelines” in the body of WCAG2 in a fashion wholly different from how it was used in WCAG1 is going to cause a *huge* amount of misunderstanding.  Is it too late to come up with another term for the middle layer?  Thanks.
</rant>
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 02:39:41 GMT

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