- From: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 19:32:32 -0000
- To: "'Ineke van der Maat'" <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I don't disagree. What I'm saying is if invalid code doesn't do any harm, then it shouldn't prohibit a site from being recognised as compliant with the WAI guidelines. For example, there are WAI logos that represent each of the three categories and then you have separate logos that represent compliance with valid HTML, XHTML markup etc. I won't pursue this any further as I've said all I have to say on the subject. Please believe me when I say I'm an evangelist for validity! My view represents a situation where invalid code doesn't affect usability or accessibility. Paul :) -----Original Message----- From: Ineke van der Maat [mailto:inekemaa@xs4all.nl] Sent: 05 November 2005 19:00 To: Paul Walsh Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Validity 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 19:32:27 UTC