- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:45:51 +0300
- To: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On May 17, 2008, at 16:07, Gez Lemon wrote: > I do understand what you are trying to get at, it's just that it > doesn't make sense to establish a policy that results in a structure > that is known to be inaccessible to some people. I think it's more > important that the resulting structure is perceivable to its intended > audience than exonerating poor authoring tools. Part of what I hold as the mission of Validator.nu is to make a validator that doesn't have the kind of flaws that previous validators are known to have. Inducing software developers to make accessibility fail harder when accessibility fails is something that I consider to be a flaw in previous validator design. So what I'm trying to do is to make Validator.nu not to cause accessibility to fail even more when the situation is that it *is going to* fail. I feel that the *added* failure would be my fault. Neither exonerating nor avoiding exonerating people are part of my goals. That accessibility is going to fail in some cases is, however, part of my working assumptions. You seem to be saying that it is OK to make accessibility fail even more when it fails, because the cases where it fails at all are bad. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2008 13:46:42 UTC