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

Re: validity.htm

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:02:47 +0100 (MET)
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <29029.1131562967@www69.gmx.net>

> I think the most evident argument not to put validity at level 1 is the 
> first: "Validity is not required for accesssibility. An accessible 
> website can still contain invalid code".

Let's examine already accepted L1 criteria. Ain't it just consequent to
state that:

* An accessible website can still contain structures which cannot be
programmatically determined (GL 1.3).
* An accessible website can still contain text which is presented over a
background image or color, which itself cannot be programmatically
determined (GL 1.4).
* An accessible website can still contain content which is designed so that
time-outs are an essential part of interaction (GL 2.2).

And a 24 hour session time-out, for example, receives L1 status, while we
question the work of 192 approved W3C specifications, thereby undermining
any chance of doing our bit for future-proof guidelines.

Please convince me that my skepticism is inappropriate.

Jens Meiert
Information Architect

http://meiert.com/ < Reloaded

| Webdesign mit CSS (O'Reilly, 228 pages, German)
| In theatres November 28th: http://meiert.com/cssdesign/
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2005 19:03:02 UTC

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