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

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 06:55:16AM -0400, Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> For example, The DHTML roadmap extensions that I and others are working on 
> are meant to help accessibility. We are taking the paradigm of the client 
> to the web by adding full keyboard support and the use of arrow keys to 
> navigate rather than relying only on the tab key.   See 
> http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/ for more details on the Firefox 
> solutions, we are working on IE compatible solutions.  Because the code 
> relies on user agent extensions to allow the tabindex attribute on any 
> element (and thus allow focus to that element), this code will not 
> validate.  In the current HTML and XHTML DTDs, the tabindex attribute is 
> specified only for the anchor and input elements.  If the requirement for 
> valid code that conforms to a DTD is required at Level 1, I would not be 
> able to use the DHTML roadmap to create a more accessible page! 

In your definition of validity you didn't specify which DTD or schema 
the document instance had to conform to, or that it must be a DTD/schema 
published by the W3C or comparable body.

Thus I assume you could live with:

Level 1: content written in an XML-based markup languages must validate 
to a DTD or schema.

Level 2: Same as level 1, but the DTD/schema must be that of a standard 
published by the W3C or a comparable body.

This way you could publish an XHTML + accessibility extensions 
DTD/schema and write your content to conform to it. This proposal does 
not entail a distinction between well-formed and valid document 
isntances as in the XML spec, and would thus apply straightforwardly to 
SGML-based languages such as HTML 4.01.

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 00:54:33 UTC