Re: Summary of arguements FOR validity -- and another against -- and a third of alternatives from Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) on 2005-11-05 (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from October to December 2005)

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:43:35 +0100
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511050337171.SM00784@Inbox>

I think we are going wrong with FOR and AGAINST.

Gl 4.1 said:
"Guideline 4.1 Use technologies according to specification."

The problem are some:
- how can said in *any* level that for accessibility is possible to violate specification?
- how we define specification? with the always used Flash example (Bob, i'm no against you but is a real case), shall *win* w3c specification or vendor specification? And where ends the vendor specifications? In the object (flash, quicktime, java) or also in the object integration inside w3c markup languages?

So, imho, the problem eventually are the requirements of gl 4.1, and not markup validity.

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 08:40:32 UTC