W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > December 2007

Re: DHTML Style Guide: http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide

From: Earl Johnson <Earl.Johnson@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:30:31 -0800
To: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-id: <47618857.4040505@sun.com>

Hi John;

Yes to both your questions: you are being cranky but you're also 
right about having a document that validates is a goal that 
should set and met in at least one release of the document before 
it goes final.

But lets be realistic and give Dan a break. Dan's first focus is 
getting us a strawman he thinks all of us to "look" at. We now 
know that one problem is validating but is anyone being prevented 
from seeing the errors you found? You can help by identifying 
then logging any validation errors preventing a sight impaired 
user from reviewing portions of the earlier drafts, it seems 
resononable to expect those to be fixed by the next update o the 
document.

Earl


John Foliot wrote:

> Evans, Donald wrote:
> 
>>We have a new location for the working document.
>>
>>Please bookmark: http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide
>>
> 
> 
> I really wish we could at eat our own dog food (or at least serve it up).  
> 
> This document contains 399 code validation errors, including but not limited
> to a DTD of XHTML 1.0 Strict and a navigation menu list that has open list
> item elements (<li>), some <meta> tags closed (<meta name="robots"
> content="index,follow" />) and others open (<meta name="Keywords"
> content="Developer network, ..., boxley">) - images too (<img
> src="/images/dev_aol_com.gif" alt="The AOL Developer Network" id="logo">),
> and a javascript array inside the <body> element, which is not allowed,
> along with (<script language="JavaScript">) with no "type" specified.  And
> that's just a start.
> 
> I am pleased as punch that WCAG 2 is in Last Call, honest I am.  But until
> that is the prescribed Recommendation or Guideline from the W3C, we are left
> with WCAG 1, which clearly states that documents should validate to formal
> published grammars (Priority 2, 3.2).
> 
> Given that this note was posted *exclusively* to a WAI list
> (wai-xtech@w3.org), I suppose that the impact is minimal.  But it's hard
> enough to have some people take us seriously (hello WHATWG) when we
> ourselves cannot do simple things right.
> 
> Or am I just being cranky and pedantic this Thursday morning?
> 
> JF
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 19:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:44 GMT