W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Validation in WCAG 2

From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:19:45 +0100
Message-ID: <3A1D23A330416E4FADC5B6C08CC252B9FD6A99@misnts16.mis.salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> From: Jesper Tverskov
[...]
> Making validation a "level one success Criteria" could make 
> is even more
> difficult to get web content authors to shift to the better "strict"
> versions of HTML and XHTML.

I'd question what is inherently "better" about strict or XHTML, with regards
to accessibility?

I'd posit that even valid HTML4.01 transitional can be
accessible provided that the other WCAG2.0 checkpoints (and associated
html/css techniques) are followed (and effectively, if you follow things like
the  separation of content and presentation, even if you declare HTML4.01
transitional, it will end up looking more like HTML4.01 strict anyway)

> Maybe validation should be level one for the transitional versions and
> level two for the strict versions? I would like to hear the opinion of
> other members of this list.

But the idea of the main WCAG2.0 document is to remain technology agnostic.
Adding this sort of detail sounds like a bad move. And, to paraphrase Alastair:
if you use XHTML you need to make damn sure it validates anyway. If you can't
guarantee validity for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, resources, whatever)
then stick with HTML (but make sure that's valid).

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 13:21:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:44 UTC