- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:24:19 +1000 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com wrote: > Jason notes that for my DHTML roadmap example: > <blockquote> > 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. > </blockquote> > > Right, I was not specific. I have DHTML roadmap examples that are > implemented in XHTML 1.0 that work, are accessible but do not validate. In > order to validate in XHTML I would have to create a new DTD and make it > publically available if I want others to be able to use the technology. I > can live with your proposals in an XHTML world but HTML offers no > mechanism for extension. So, I may be able to do some creative things to > improve accessibility in HTML but I would not be able to use them because > I am making use of user agent extensions which are not in any DTD or > schema. To the contrary, you could take one of the HTML 4 DTD's, add the extensions and validate against it. You wouldn't even have to publish it in order to meet a validity requirement; you would just have to create it and then validate the document instances. Thus if the level 1 requirement is that there exists a DTD or schema, however created, to which the document instance is valid, this doesn't seem to pose any obstacles whether the language is defined by SGML (as in all versions of HTML) or by XML. Thus I conclude that language extensions would not give rise to any difficulties if a level 1 validity requirement were established.
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 23:24:25 UTC