- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:31:14 -0500
- To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 09:53 AM 2002-11-17, you wrote: >Sure but the problem is: is people able to understand claims? I see for >experience that people consider a valid HTML, XHTML, CSS, WCAG 1.0 A, AA, >AAA valid web sites if they see the logo put in the website... >This IMHO, Of course you are right. I just got the XML2002 website cleaned up in fact. Some of their pages contained a DOCTYPE of HTML 4.0 and the icon said 4.01. When I reported this, rather quickly the webmaster changed things so they match. This is a group that appreciates the value of conformance. But there have been too many scams where all that you are assured is that you get what you get. The system has to make the confirmation check easy for the few who are skeptics in order for the "many eyes" or "bazaar" effect of the web to protect the many who are too busy to check. The W3C is weak on enforcement. Accessibility may indeed remain the spear point in setting precedents where W3C/QA will eventually follow. But we also need to form a coalition with the XML community who care about valid stuff in mounting the validity campaign. Al PS: Roberto, as AC rep you will want to be campaigning WAI for the ER group to stay alive and work on these issues. Talk to Wendy and Judy and you will find that what you have to say resonates with what some others are saying.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 10:31:32 UTC