RE: Validity as a technique

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