- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:20:18 -0600
- To: "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "'Yvette Hoitink'" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sorry I think you missed the thread. I think her suggestion was that 4.1 was not necessary if validity was already required in other places - at least to the extent that it was needed for programmatically determining things. Maybe I misunderstood her. Yvette - did I get this right or were you saying something else. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG [mailto:rscano@iwa-italy.org] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:37 AM To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Yvette Hoitink'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Validity as a technique -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:51 PM To: 'Yvette Hoitink'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Validity as a technique Several people have made this point - and it seems to indicate that validity testing would be a very good tool to use in achieving the goal of 'programmatically determined'. Roberto Scano: Yes, this is the point. If we talk about "programmatically determinated", validity is important both for text/html and application/xhtml+xml. IMHO is clear that IWA/HWG is against GL 4.1 removal.
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 17:20:29 UTC