- From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:50:46 +0200
- To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I think you answered so fast that you've hardly read my message, but, ok, you're the multitasking guy... :-) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: >Following your consideration, seems that a text-only page should Be accessible :) > > Well, surely it isn't inaccessible. I'm not sure to see your point. >But my question is: we want to guarantee, as in the wai project request, accessibility for all or accessibility for some disabilities? > > And that what have to do with validation? >Serving invalid code as xhtml cause inaccessibility by ua that support this racommendation: this is why is requested as priority 1, otherwise as I told before, we are making Jurassic Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. > > I think you mean xhtml served with mime-type application/xhtml+xml. But it hasn't to do with accessibility guidelines, but with XML and UA specs. XML has to be valid to be parsed by compliant UA,*if* served with appropriate mime-type. Html don't. I see this like an accessibility problem induced by w3c specs itselves. And it sounds a little bit ironic that we have to claim validity just because we said UA not to parse invalid pages... Anyway, I've already specified in my messages that I was talking about text/html mime-type, that is far more accessible in nature than application/xhtml+xml mime-type, 'cause it doesn't force UA to break the parsing. XML specs needs validation because they say so. It's a tautology. But it doesn't need all web content to be valid to be accessible. Maurizio
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 17:41:59 UTC