RE: Validity as a technique

> I'm trying to find a compromise that is acceptable to all and try 
> to use neutral language where I can. 

Understood, I agree with you, don’t think you are doing anything wrong, and am trying to do the same thing.  I am also almost exclusively focused on the task set before us by Gregg.  I am thinking only of the Guidelines (big G) and mostly just the list of alternatives and variations.

> Could you please not simply say that you disagree with me but 
> explain what you mean?

Sorry.  Given the context, I presumed you were arguing why keeping validity at Level 2 was acceptable.

> Could you give me some examples of accessibility problems that would 
> be caught by requiring validity in the document (your wish) and not by 
> addressing validity in the techniques for the 'programmatically determined' 
> success criteria (my proposal)?

Unless I hear differently, I do not believe it is relevant (at this moment in time) to be discussing the supporting techniques document.  It might be on-topic if this makes the some of the vetted compromises (for the WCAG) more acceptable.

> In my proposal, we wouldn't need to address validity at all in our 
> guidelines and view validity as a technique to ensure the other 
> accessibility requirements can be met.  As such I propose to delete 
> them from the guidelines (all levels) and only talk about techniques.

Great!  The omission of an explicit reference to validity in WCAG2 SC is one of the compromises I have offered as being acceptable to the “don’t compromise the importance of validity” faction.