- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:04:24 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi Tina, On 09/08/05, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net> wrote: > the W3C validator has one specific job, and one job > only: it checks the syntax of a markup language against a DTD. > > That is *all* it does - and it is wrong to say that it doesn't catch > an error, when the markup doesn't contain the erroneous attribute. > > Testing whether markup is correct after it has been manipulated by > something-or-other on the client side is way out of scope for the > validator. I disagree. For the markup validator to remain useful, I personally think it should do more than just confirm whether or not the markup conforms to a DTD. The validator creates a document tree in order to parse the nodes and ensure they validate against the appropriate DTD. If they already have a document tree, it would be relatively easy for them to apply any changes to the DOM through scripting when a document is loaded to their document tree. Jeffrey Zeldman recently praised Bobby van der Sluis [1] on a new way to embed Flash while supporting web standards [2]. I don't wish to undermine Bobby's work, as it does more than purely embed a Flash movie, but it doesn't support standards; it just appears to support standards using the W3C's markup validator, but the technique inserts an embed element into the DOM if required. If required is better than always, and getting Flash to work cross-platform is an important issue. I'd prefer a standards compliant method, but despite what it says on the tin, this isn't a standards compliant method. The only reason anyone may think it is, is because the W3C's markup validator only checks the markup. If validation is important, then surely it's important that the DOM remains valid, particularly as developers are encouraged to separate structure, presentation, and behaviour. I'm not taking an authoritative stance on this issue; it's just that I believe the markup validator needs updating to remain useful. Taking its literal meaning, the markup validator clearly does a good enough job in its current state. Reflecting changes made to the DOM when a document is loaded isn't unachievable, and would make a useful too that much more useful. > But the W3C syntax checker - the technical term for which is > "validator" - isn't an accessibility tool. It checks grammar of > supplied markup, and that's *all* it does. > > I suggest you remove that test from your article, as it really is not > related to the other tools. I do appreciate that I'm in the minority in believing that validity is important for accessibility. For accessibility not to be considered a bolt on, it needs to be considered at all stages of the development lifecycle. In my experience, developers tend to take an iterative approach when building websites, and validate the markup at regular intervals to ensure that errors aren't being compounded through the development lifecycle. As I believe that validity is important for accessibility, I believe the results from the markup validator belong in the results. Obviously, anyone who doesn't believe that validity is important for accessibility can just discard the markup validator results. [1] http://zeldman.com/daily/0705e.shtml [2] http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/ufo/ Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:11:21 UTC