RE: Summary of arguements FOR validity -- and another against -- and a third of alternatives

Try for eg. A page with follow elements unclosed:
- table
- td
- tr
- ul
- blockquote
- a
Try also a page with:
- scripting errors
- numbered "id" attribute
- non-sgml charset presented with encoding different than utf-8

And finally test all these with text/html browser and with application/xhtml+xml.
And please don't said that there are no accessible Browser that support application/xhtml+xml: we are defining new guidelines, and not wcag 1.1 for fix wcag 1.0 mistakes (like, for eg.colour contrast for text at level 3 or web app that should work without js at level 1).

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Paul Walsh"<paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
    Inviato: 05/11/05 10.21.40
    A: "'Livio Mondini'"<livio.mondini@tiuvizeta.it>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Summary of arguements FOR validity -- and another against -- and a third of alternatives
    
    
           ...If it's possible to have a fully accessible website that
          contains invalid code, how can it be an accessibility issue?
          The fact
          is, it's not.
          
          It is not true, try to load invalid code on any (assistive
          or not) device ...
          Livio
    
    [Paul] Can you please provide a real example of an assistive technology
    doesn't work as a result of invalid code, where all WAI guidelines pass?
    As I said, if an assistive technology doesn't work properly, it must
    fail at least one guideline, resolve the issue that causes that failure
    and you have no need for validity.
    
    Kind regards,
    Paul
    Segala M Test
          
          
    
    
    
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 09:35:08 UTC