- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 22:50:22 +0000
- To: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 07/11/05, Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it> wrote: > Lack of validity itself isn't an > accessibility problem. Better: it actually is only with > application/xhtml+xml mime type, so we should cover that case. This is fundamentally different to what my understanding of web accessibility is, although I would be happy to be corrected. I thought the focus of web accessibility was purely about ensuring that people with disabilities were given equal access to web content. Assuming that I'm correct in that assumption, application/xhtml+xml couldn't possibly cause an accessibility barrier; it's either available to everyone or no one; there is no discrimination. Any developer that goes to the length of serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml is going to be fully aware of the implications, and is likely to ensure that the content maintains well-formed. I can't see how this could be considered an accessibility issue, and one worth promoting above validity for the masses. Invalid documents can cause real accessibility problems - that's why those that don't consider validity vital for accessibility are thinking of ways it can be included without putting anyone out too much, as dismissing validity completely makes no sense. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 22:50:26 UTC