- From: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 20:00:09 +0100
- To: "Paul Walsh" <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hello Paul, You wrote today: >but I wouldn't like it to be > seen as a defacto checkpoint. I think it's great to help with > accessibility but it ends up on the bottom of my list if all else equals > accessibility anyway. In my opinion is valid code not only important for accessibility but for operability too. So i easily can use another (AT)-platform for reading the same website when I need that. When one firm can not make flash with accessible code, we should not permit this firm to use invalid code. So we open the gate for other firms also to do. And when such firms will be taken over by Microsoft, the next version of IE will probably require proprietary code. And what then? Of course a firm can produce valid code for using flash or other applications and AT can be fixed for interpreting specifications correctly. It is too crazy for words that a working group of W3C will not require valid code according specifications of W3C. Why are specifications really existing? greetings Ineke van der Maat
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2005 19:00:01 UTC