W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:36 -0700
Message-ID: <42B30CB8.6030209@w3.org>
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.

Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 17:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:40 UTC