W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Updated Bobby /approved sites what are that?

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:53:52 -0800
Message-Id: <a05101001b85e5b35fe74@[10.0.1.2]>
To: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 2:12 PM +0000 1/6/02, David Woolley wrote:
>From: "Chris Croome" <chris@webarchitects.co.uk>
>
>>  The last version of Bobby came up with loads of 'browser compability'
>>  errors when one was using XHTML rather than HTML, most of these seem to
>
>Unless you write downwards compatible XHTML, you should expect
>compatibility errors.

And even then you should still expect it, because Bobby "browser
compatability" errors are really more like warnings, which say things
like "this browser doesn't support <X> or <Y>".  In some cases that's
completely harmless, in others it's serious.  In many cases you may
want to just completely forget about warnings; for example, it's very
possible (unless they've changed it recently) to generate a self-
contradictory Bobby report.

Like what?  Well, things like one part of the report saying "you
need to add the <acronym> element" and then once you've added it,
a warning saying the <acronym> element is not supported by browsers
X, Y, and Z.

(I suspect David knows this already; I'm mainly making the point for
the general audience.)

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201
Forthcoming: Teach Yourself CSS in 24 Hours
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2002 14:58:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT