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

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

From: Evans, Donald <Donald.Evans@corp.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:01:19 -0500
Message-ID: <1D65257B9F22C84F89F812FB1C24CA8DC358FD@EXCHNVA02.ad.office.aol.com>
To: "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>

Maybe we can share that can of dog food?  

http://www.wats.ca
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
Failed validation, 13 Errors 
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wats.ca%2F&charset=%2
8detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 

Or, maybe I am just grumpy today too!

;-)  

---don

-----Original Message-----
From: John Foliot [mailto:foliot@wats.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Evans, Donald
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Subject: RE: DHTML Style Guide: http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide

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 21:03:43 GMT

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