- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:36 -0700
- To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Cc: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Joe Clark wrote: > Had that group been a bit wiser, they could have put forth quite a > palatable proposal, like the following: > > 1. Require structural, semantic markup (and knock off this nonsense > that "semantic" isn't a word anybody understands or is already used by > some remote tribe in Papua New Guinea, so we can't use it too) > > 2. Require the use of accessibility features if they exist (modulo > deprecated cases like accesskey, which is easy to exclude in a > techniques document) > > 3. Prefer structured formats over unstructured ones (modulo the fact > that sometimes all you've got is unstructured data) > > 4. Produce valid code as often as humanly possible (which is quite > humanly possible in a much larger range of cases than the blandishment > "we can't force authors to mark up documents manually" would suggest) If this is the proposal, I support it over what is there now (modulo stuff in parenthesis). It just needs to be written in a way that's testable. But I reject the idea that a binary assertion of validity has any bearing on accessibility, just like I do with readability scales. There's too much gray area there to be universally useful. All sins in validation are not equal. - m
Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 17:47:42 UTC