- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:40:16 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 21/06/05, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it> wrote: > I know that potential problems with ampersand exist. But most of the > time they don't come up. They aren't surely broken: they may be broken Most of the time isn't all of the time. Why are you insisting on 100%? Not everyone has a visual impairment. Not everyone has a mobility problem. Not everyone has a cognition problem. We're considering factors that are most likely to hinder accessibility. Invalid documents can and do hinder accessibility. Valid documents aren't a guarantee for accessibility, but they do offer a solid foundation to build accessibility on. > I can't figure out in which situation the content of a non-closed > metatag or a <p> among other p-s, or an invalid attribute, result in > content not being accessible. > Apart from xml transformation and application/xhtml+xml mime type, I > mean. Any suggestion? :) Is validity restricted to unclosed meta tags, or paragraphs? If so, I would support a proposal that documents must be valid according to their specification, with the exception of closing meta tags or paragraphs. If not, then the following would be inaccessible. <img src="/img/ir.jpg" alt="Interest Rate"78%> There are far too many validity mistakes that could result in accessibility issues to list. If this mistake is covered by another guideline, there will be others that won't. So it comes down to what's a serious mistake and what's a little mistake. Shall we start to make a list? Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 23:40:21 UTC