Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)

Lisa Seeman wrote:

> Becky, I think your premise hear that the DHTML road map will not be 
> valid may be incorrect. The DHTML road map (worked on with IBM and the 
> PF working group) is an example of the opposite, where this guideline 
> has course the grammars that you need to be published, as an XHTML 
> extension. Hence it will conform to formal grammars DTD or Schema- not 
> in a long time, but in about a month or two after it was pointed out 
> to the team that this was necessary.
>
> See comments in line
>
> Becky wrote:
>
>>       For example, The DHTML roadmap extensions that I and others are 
>> working on    are meant to help accessibility. ..
>>
> We are
>
>>    working within the W3C to get this new technology fully supported 
>> in the    specifications. But, that takes time and until that happens 
>> I could not    conform to WCAG 2.0 if the validity requirement was at 
>> Level 1.   WCAG 2.0    should not restrict projects that are working 
>> to improve accessibility by    including Level 1 requirements that do 
>> not always guarantee accessibility.  
>>
>
>
> As I understand it, because of this WCAG 2.0  requirement, at level 1, 
> an XHTML module will be published that conforms to the XHTML  
> extension specification, that will enable all of the functionality of 
> the current examples running with firefox. Note: XHTML is modular and 
> easily extended - it will take one person a few days  to do so.  In 
> other words this requirement  has made your work more useful resulting 
> in the grammars being made available to all, and promoting 
> harmonization/unity of accessibility techniques and practices.
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 20:11:56 UTC