Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days

Hi, but at least all the problem is oriented to big vendor applications that aren't able to generate code that conform to the declared DTD? Or the problem are the amatorial web developer or developer that define themself "professional" but that don't know the difference between <b> and <strong>?
Mmmm... i don't see consensus in this SC.
Remember also that putting a doctype and not respect it is a false declaration, and for QA and for trust, should we agree to this?

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: kerstin <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
Date:  Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:15:32 -0700

><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><html>
><head>
>  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
>  <title></title>
></head>
><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
>Thanks for your words, Matt.  Couldn't have put it better myself. 
>Really, our issue should be to describe accessible behaviour of
>content, and let people implement how they can/may, while still
>accomodating all the other multitudes of requirements that they have on
>them besides accessibility.  Ours is not to reason why, ours is just to
>describe, describe, describe -- and to stay away from <b>prescribe</b>.<br>
><br>
>:-)<br>
>-Kerstin<br>
><br>
>Matt May wrote:<br>
><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid42B06035.6010906@w3.org"><br>
>Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote:
>  <br>
>  <br>
>  <blockquote type="cite">Matt:
>    <br>
>   We're not in an application/xhtml+xml world while the 85% majority
>   browser chokes on it.
>    <br>
>    <br>
>Roberto:
>    <br>
>So we still in 1999 for this SC?
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  </blockquote>
>  <br>
>We will be in 1999 no matter what we do. So the next question is
>whether we carry along all of the HTML producers who don't understand
>and get them somewhere close to accessible, or leave them and all their
>content behind.
>  <br>
>  <br>
>  <blockquote type="cite">   Roberto:
>    <br>
>Our target should be web professional developement, not the amatorial
>ones: otherwise we don't need wcag 2.0 and we could stay with wcag 1.0.
> 
>    <br>
>    <br>
>  </blockquote>
>  <br>
>Plenty of professional developers, who get paid lots of money from
>major corporations specifically to write HTML, won't, can't, or don't
>know how to validate. In fact, even among the more enlightened
>developers, it's hard to find one who hasn't had a client who made them
>do something that broke HTML validity.
>  <br>
>  <br>
>It is misleading to say that validity for all content is a solved
>problem. Maybe in a perfect world, but not in this one.
>  <br>
>  <br>
>-
>  <br>
>m
>  <br>
>  <br>
></blockquote>
></body>
></html>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 20:29:49 UTC