W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)

From: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:32:34 +0200
Message-ID: <002a01c67fde$278fca80$0201a8c0@inekem>
To: "Johannes Koch" <koch@w3development.de>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


Can anybody tell me what to write in the baseline whenthe page contains 
xhtml that is delived as xml. You know IE does not support this now.

but by creating a baseline for xhtml the site is accessible for all, also 
for those who have IE?

hetre is the big failure that i have to agree with Joe statement: to hell to 
WCAG 2.0

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Johannes Koch" <koch@w3development.de>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)

> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> You don't pass a success criterion by passing a technique test.   The
>> technique tests only tell you that you pass the technique. Whether a
>> technique is sufficient to meet
> I assume there's something missing here. But yes, the "Understanding" 
> document lists techniques that the WCAG WG thinks to be sufficient to pass 
> a success criterion.
>> If you pass a technique but trigger a failure - then you fail.  No matter
>> who's technique.
> Ah, interesting. That's a clear statement  :-)
>> We document common failures to make it easier for people to avoid them.
>> They are failures whether we document them or not.    They are failures 
>> not
>> because they are documented but because you can't do them and meet the
>> success criterion.    If someone creates a technique that they say meets 
>> the success criterion but
>> it involves something that is documented as a failure then
>> a) they are mistaken
> That's what I meant with interfering.
>> or
>> b) the failure is written up poorly and should and would be changed.  A 
>> properly written failure is always a failure unless or until the success
>> criterion is changed. Does that help?
> Yes, thanks.
> -- 
> Johannes Koch
> Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
>                          (Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2006 09:32:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:00 UTC