- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:53:30 +1000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
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