- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:27:29 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Christophe Strobbe wrote: <blockquote> Deprecated features was not the best example to choose for my argument (but it's what started the thread). However, take a look at CP 3.3: "Use style sheets to control layout and presentation." Every user agent has a built-in stylesheet or presentation, so you could argue that the content always passes the checkpoint even if the developer fails process-wise. </blockquote> Jon Ribbens responded: <blockquote> I don't get you. That interpretation is clearly ridiculous, and although the WCAG 1.0 may not often be a paragon of clarity and precision, if they had meant a particular checkpoint to read "this checkpoint is redundant and may never be failed no matter what the content", I'm sure they would have said so. </blockquote> I understand why you find it ridiculous, but normative documents have to be unambiguous without our own guesses about the intention of the WCAG Working Group. This is one of the reasons why the WCAG WG spends so much time on closing potential loopholes in the WCAG 2.0 success criteria and the glossary. I know at least one success criterion that was removed when it appeared that it was unreasonable to implement when all loopholes were removed (in GL 3.1: meaning of each word...). Regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 08:25:54 UTC