R: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

Yes but remember that ATAG 2.0 should be mantain a back-compatibility with
ATAG 1.0:

Years ago, where there was no great technologies and WYSIWYG editors, ATAG
1.0 said:

http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/#gl-language-support
2.2 Ensure that the tool automatically generates valid markup. [Priority 1] 
This is necessary for user agents to be able to render Web content in a
manner appropriate to a particular user's needs

Techniques:
* Ensure that the markup produced by the tool, in any of its supported
languages, is valid. 
* Publish proprietary language specifications or DTD's on the Web, to allow
documents to be validated. 
* Use namespaces and schemas to make documents that can be automatically
transformed to a known markup language. 

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] Per conto
di Jim Ley
Inviato: marted́ 26 luglio 2005 10.06
A: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Oggetto: Re: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft




"Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com> wrote in message 
news:42E54165.7020002@bestkungfu.com...
> Which is why validity doesn't need to be in the WCAG spec to satisfy
> XHTML. In XHTML, being valid (or at least well-formed) is an architectural

> constraint: you can't fail to do it and still be usable in any form.

Of course you can, sites such as www.w3.org often make mistakes and deliver 
invalid XHTML, the browsers error correcct it into something that works, if 
invalid xhtml is a barrier to accessibility, then it needs to be in WCAG, as

it's certainly not the case that invalid or even non-well formed XHTML 
causes any problems to the majority of user agents available today.

Jim.

Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 10:46:16 UTC