- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:29:14 +0200
- To: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, public-wai-ert@w3.org
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:10:33 +0200, Johannes Koch
<johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>
> Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>
>> At 16:29 29/03/2006, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> > One of the things I found surprising is the requirement for web
>>> > sites to validate as 'strict'.
>>>
>>> It's not that surprising, it's effectively also a requirement for
>>> WCAG 1.0 "AA" compliance (checkpoints 3.2 and 11.2).
>> Hmm. I don't see the word "strict" in those success criteria.
>> For conformance to WCAG 1.0 you can still use the transitional DTDs
>> and avoid their deprecated features.
>
> Well, yes. But why do you reference a transitional document type when
> you use only markup from the strict one?
What are we, the "second guess the Italian Government's interpretation of
the WCAG working group", or the "evaluation and repair tools working
group"?
chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 18:29:13 UTC