- From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:09:50 +0100
- To: <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Christophe Strobbe"<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Inviato: 04/11/05 11.54.12
A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Oggetto: Re: Validity
Isn't this an element of "practical reality" that can be used as an
argument against requiring valid code at level 1? How does using <embed>
harm accessibility? Should WCAG ban content just because it uses a certain
technology or because the content (in spite of accessibility features of
the technology) is inaccessible?
Roberto:
So should wcag authorize dtd violation? Should this be a precedent of a Vendor choice that require to modify web standards for support proprietary elements?
Christophe;
Based on what you write above, it is not "Microsoft instead of Macronmedia"
but "Microsoft and Macromedia" because the former company is responsible
for MSAA.
Roberto:
Yes this is true, like the choice of MM to use embed. So u would like validity at level 2 or 3 so all the "soup" can be used?
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 11:06:56 UTC