- From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:00:08 -0400
- To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <bregan@macromedia.com>, <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>, <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
>The problem is: no valid code means also dom parsing interpretation, more >checks for AT, so more money for develop AT. >So, what we want is support wrong policies of companies that use >proprietary elements and/or that are not able to create tools that conform >to level A of atag 2.0? Really? Please be careful. Avoiding a requirement for validity in a WAI specification is *not* the same thing as supporting a bad policy or endorsing an inaccessible tool. Reconsidering how ATAG and WCAG address validity is *not* the same thing as saying, "invalid code doesn't effect accessibility, please take 5 years worth of steps backward." Some questions to consider: 1. How likely is it that if ATAG and WCAG remove or reduce requirements for valid code that tool developers will modify their tools to increase the validity errors generated by their tools? 2. What about forces outside of WAI? Aren't they likely to have a larger/stronger effect on tools producing and consuming valid code? 3. As people migrate towards XHTML and other XML-based languages that aren't even supposed to render invalid code, aren't validity issues likely to decrease? Best, --w
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 17:00:21 UTC