- From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:06:47 +0100
- To: Livio Mondini <livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>
- CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I can't see the answer to my question. What do we mean to put in level 1 of priority? The topic is better explained here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance I took that as level 1 success criteria. And that for me doesn't require validation. We can fulfill the L1 criteria even without bothering with validation issues. But, because it's a matter of interpretation, maybe this may need to be clarified in a unambiguos way (or may be not: for me it doesn't). This is what I'm talking about, and what I think validation discussion is related to. And no-one (look, no-one!) listed his or her reason to have validation in L1... That sounds strange, because I think that is what makes the difference. It's like we want to miss the point... Maurizio Livio Mondini wrote: >Maurizio wrote: > Only this can give us criterium to decide what is to put >here or there. >In fact, I agree (and even Andrew Kirkpatrick agree, as you >can read) >that validation is good and better. The problem is "how much >validation >is good and better when talking about accessibility in our >guidelines"? >It's not a 0/1 question. I hope this is clearer than before. > >Livio >WCAG 2.0 declare four principles: >1. Content must be perceivable. >2. User interface components in the content must be >operable. >3. Content and controls must be understandable. >4. Content must be robust enough to work with current and >future technologies. > These four principles lay the foundation necessary for >anyone to access and use Web content. > >All this points *require* valid code, where is the problem? > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 16:54:55 UTC