W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2014

Re: WCAG 2.0 4.1.1 Parsing (elements have complete start and end tags)

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:51:30 -0600
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <4F9C799A-632F-4DA0-91D1-F96F408AF5E3@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
I believe the way to do this is to explain -- in the Understanding document --   that

 "Complete start and end tags"  does not mean "matching start and end tags".  They key is always what is in the specification.  If a specification only requires one tag in some cases then one tag would constitute "complete start and end tags" for that feature.     The phrasing of the success criterion was chosen to differentiate situations where specifications require start and end tags, but they are often missing because browsers can repair and recover from missing tags, but unfortunately not all AT could.   The language in the success criterion was never intended, and should not be interpreted to mean, that WCAG requires start or end tags that are not required  by the specification."

gregg



On Feb 9, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:

> I agree with Jamesís interpretation also.  This language is not open for changes at this time but we can make sure that the understanding document helps make this clear.  If you have any suggestions for increasing the clarity, please pass them on..
>  
> From: Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 10:20 AM
> To: James Nurthen
> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; HTMLWG WG; HTML Accessibility Task Force; Richard Schwerdtfeger
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 4.1.1 Parsing (elements have complete start and end tags)
>  
>  
> "4.1.1 Parsing: In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags, elements are nested according to their specifications, elements do not contain duplicate attributes, and any IDs are unique, except where the specifications allow these features. "
> 
> 
> thanks James, that makes sense. though the wording could be clearer, while I have always considered optional end tags to be OK others have interpreted wcag as requiring them.
> 
> --
> 
> Regards
> 
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1
>  
> 
> On 9 February 2014 15:10, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote:
> Steve,
> The complete text is
> "4.1.1 Parsing: In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags, elements are nested according to their specifications, elements do not contain duplicate attributes, and any IDs are unique, except where the specifications allow these features. "
> 
> As you have stated, the html specification allows certain end tags to be optional and some have no end tags so there is no issue with 4.1.1 as the specification allows these features.
> 
> Regards,
> James
> 
> 
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > criteria 4.1.1 [1] parsing, requires complete start and end tags for all elements.
> >
> > "In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags"
> >
> > in HTML end tags certain end tags are optional [2] and certain elements have no end tags (<img>, <input> etc.) How do we explain/reconcile this disparity?
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#ensure-compat
> >
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission:
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > HTML 5.1
> 
Received on Sunday, 9 February 2014 20:52:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:37 UTC