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

R: R: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers

From: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:31:19 +0200
Message-ID: <429435EA006EEC72@ms004msg.mail.fw> (added by postmaster@fastwebnet.it)
To: "'Maurizio Boscarol'" <maurizio@usabile.it>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>

But just tell me why validation should be at level 1, looking at the same
criteria that 
has been used for every other L1 success criteria. They are all very 
important thing. If missing, the content or functionality is surely 
missing. If missing validation with text/html content, what is missing? 
It depends, but nothing for sure.

It depends, nothing for sure? Are we really going to build up the new WCAG
saying "it depends, nothing for sure"?

And real world prove that we can live without valid pages: they can be 
accessible, as you said. 

Real world proves that "it depends, nothing for sure", as you said... 
Please, find us one single serious standard which contains such words, which
is based on doubts.

I'll be happier if every fan of validation would admit honestly that 
this is the most important reason they want validation as a preliminar 
requisite. The one and the only to put it in L1. And that this has 
little to do with basic web accessibility. But I won't have this 
satisfaction, I'm sure. ;-)

I would be glad too if everyone agreed on my positions, but this is a
discussion so there is nothing strange about having different ways of
thinking; that's why all I can "admit honestly" is that there's nothing
wrong with your position, but please you should say the same for me and for
all the "fan of validation".

I stay with my beliefs that wcag should address accessibility problems, 
not other w3c's brand new ideas.

So Semantic Web is an "other w3c's brand new idea"? Now it's you who are
joking ;-)

My best regards,

Roberto Castaldo
www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
IWA/HWG Member
Icq 178709294
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 13:31:39 UTC

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