Re: Priority of valid documents

Phill, could you give some examples please? I can't (off the top of my head)
come up with any, so I'm having a hard time sorting out where the issues are.

Some further explanation of my thinking:

It is possible (and common practice at the moment) for authoring tools to
work to a DTD other then the W3C recommendations. In the case of trying to
implement new accessibility features this is desirable, and in the case of
XML it is necessary at the moment.

A tool could meet the P1 requirement any time by validating to a DTD based on
it's own workings. So long as that DTD did not cause a loss of accessibility
in some way it would meet the current 2.2 (which is P1).

If the DTD it used replicated some feature of a w3c specification, or if it
was a cut-down version, then it would not meet 2.1 (which is a p2). Note that
when XHTML is modularised it will be very much easier to meet this checkpoint
with cut-down versions which only use particular parts of HTML, and still
maintain compatibility with badly implemented browsers.

On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:
  
  As a Webmaster I'm having a tough time producing "valid documents" per the
  W3C HTML40 validator, and making them compatible with browsers
  implementations.  In some cases I cannot satisfy both, so making it a
  priority 1 would mean a priority 1 noone could meet some of the time.
  
  Regards,
  Phill Jenkins
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Monday, 26 April 1999 13:13:40 UTC