- From: Michele Diodati <michele.diodati@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:57:43 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I would propose to the group to examine another point of view about validity issue. It seems to me that the real problem with requesting validity to developers is the ability of browsers to compensate for lacking of validity: they succeed in rendering even a web page with thousand of errors within. Though there are many good reasons to publish pages without (X)HTML errors, no one of these is decisive. A " " at the end of a page is enough to get invalid code; at the same time, today the front page of The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> has 17 errors and I can nevertheless read it. I think that requesting validity as a basic requisite for accessibility need something stronger than a vague possibility that something goes wrong with an AT. As developers, we need such a guideline that, if we do not apply it, the effect is immediately visible and unequivocal. So, if we think validity is indispensable, a solution could be to request, for every web page published, a content-type of application/xhtml+xml. In that case, validity is actually necessary: no validity no rendering of the page. (To address old browsers incapability with a content-type of application/xhtml+xml is always possible to create a server side switch for serving a content-type of text/html to all the old user agents.) Best regards, Michele Diodati -- ---------------------------------- M i c h e l e D i o d a t i Via Pian due Torri 86 - 00146 Roma Tel. 06 5503533 - Fax 06 233212132 http://www.diodati.org ----------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 09:57:47 UTC