W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2006

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:22:06 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060511202206.8DAC5BDA8@w3c4.w3.org>

Name: Greg Gay
Email: g.gay@utoronto.ca
Affiliation: ATRC UofT
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 4.1.1
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
In guideline 4.1.1  does \"parsed unambiguosly\"  mean \"well formed\" or \"valid\"?  The techniques seem to suggest that markup must be valid, though you would be hard pressed to find invalid code that disrupts any relatively recent screen reader\'s ability to read a Web unit. It takes severely broken markup to affect accessibility, or specific types of errors (such as broken table structures). While I am all for valid markup, it is *not* a requirement for accessibility in most cases, particularly at level 1. I can see this requirement at level 2 perhaps.

Proposed Change:
What would be appropriate here to have a well formed requirement at level 1, and valid at level 2. And still this really has to do with compatibility with future technologies, rather than affects on accessibility using current technologies. 
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:22:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:06 UTC