W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:03:32 +0100
Message-ID: <49A3C5F4.8090804@technosite.es>
To: w3c-wai-gl-request@listhub.w3.org
CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <vanderhe@spamarrest.com>, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cynthia Shelly wrote:
 > Right.  So, does this pass or not? If I can't figure it out as a 
member of the working group, I suspect others will have the same question.

Looking afresh at the presentation of the Techniques I have to agree 
that it's not readily apparent that failing them is not a failure of the 
corresponding SCs. I can foresee that people will be confused by this 
Technique (and by extension, others), especially those approaching it 
from WCAG 1.0, in which validation is a requirement. Perhaps in the 
standalone Techniques pages a short "Please read this first" link at the 
start, jumping to the relevant part of the Introduction would be useful.

regards,

Alan


Cynthia Shelly escribió:
> Right.  So, does this pass or not? If I can't figure it out as a member of the working group, I suspect others will have the same question.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:vanderhe@spamarrest.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:46 AM
> To: Cynthia Shelly
> Cc: Sailesh Panchang; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented
> 
> validating is A test that is sufficient.
> 
> it is not THE test and is not required.
> 
> gregg
> 
> 
> On Feb 20, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
> 
>> I understand that's how to test that the validation technique has
>> been done.  But, validation is only a technique, and techniques are
>> optional.  This case isn't listed in the failure.  Should it be?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:44 PM
>> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> Cc: Cynthia Shelly
>> Subject: Re: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented
>>
>> Cynthia,
>>
>> Validating the code  through a validator is the test for 4.1.1. This
>> is with regard to the  DTD. This will ensure it is "according to
>> their specifications". How a browser or AT handles  this is of no
>> concern.
>> I think the SC and  hints for testing are sufficiently clear.
>> Regards,
>> Sailesh Panchang
>> www.deque.com
>> Tel 571-344-1765 (C)
>> 703-225-0380 (work)
>>
>> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
>>> Subject: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented
>>> To: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 6:25 PM
>>> I couldn't find a definitive answer to this question by
>>> looking at the 4.1.1 text or failures.
>>>
>>> If a page has a doctype of XHMTL 1.0 and includes an IMG or
>>> INPUT tag that isn't self-closing, does it pass 4.1.1?
>>>
>>> <input type="text"> is allowed in HTML
>>> <input type="text" /> would be expected in
>>> XHTML
>>>
>>> BUT, it's not entirely clear whether
>>> <input type="text"> in XHTML passes.  I
>>> don't believe it causes any problems, it's still
>>> parseable by user agents, but I'm not sure if it
>>> violates
>>> "elements have complete start and end tags, elements
>>> are nested according to their specifications,"
>>>
>>> Can we clarify this in a technique or failure?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Alan Chuter
Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad
Consultor
Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
Fundación ONCE
Tfno.: 91 121 03 30
Fax: 91 375 70 51
achuter@technosite.es
http://www.technosite.es
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 10:06:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:56 GMT