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

Re: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely!

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:28:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200506221728.j5MHSlFU001267@asterix.andreasen.se>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

On 21 Jun, Gez Lemon wrote:

> On 21/06/05, David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca> wrote:
>> The only reason we have it in at P2 (rather than leaving it to the
> We? I feel excluded. Has everyone agreed on this, or this an
> inner-circle we?
> It's clear there is no point in continuing to debate this issue. Any
> serious points are ignored, and I think you're right in that this
> issue is a foregone conclusion.

  Far, far from it.

  I - and others - are going to, one day, have to explain, to people who
  understand technology better and better, exactly WHY a text filled
  with spelling mistakes and poor grammar isn't to be considered much of
  a problem for those supposed to read it.

  Like poor grammar in text, valid code can have minor, or major, impact
  on the "accessibility" of the content.

  For some reason, people will ask, the W3C don't consider that very

  I'm one of those people.

  We have the tools available to, automatically, at least ensure that
  every word in our text is *spelled* according to a common, agreed
  upon, standard. Using those tools will remove the od mistake of no
  consequence, but it will alto hep coffect mavor pvoblvems.

  So no. This discussion isn't over. WCAG 2 might not address it, but
  the *debate* will go on - most likely among those deciding whether or
  not to make said WCAG standard baseline for some organisation or

  Or the EU. Or, goddess help us, the UN.

 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 17:28:58 UTC

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