RE: About tests 37-41 (headers) *wkey

Content that fails to use any specific technique does not necessarily
fail to conform to WCAG2. Otherwise, you would need to use all
techniques listed to satisfy WCAG2.

So "fail technique G134 so they do not meet SC4.1.1" is not correct.

However, if nested tables in HTML cannot be parsed unambiguously, they
do not meet SC 4.1.1. 

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Ridpath
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:52 AM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden; 'Johannes Koch'; 'WCAG'
> Subject: Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) *wkey
> 
> 
> My use of the word "forbid" may have muddied the question.
> I'll try again...
> 
> I think the intent of Vicente's question is "Does a
> document that contains
> nested tables conform to the WCAG2?". This is what authors
> will be asking
> all the time - does my content conform?
> 
> My interpretation is that no, it does not conform.
> 
> The reason is that nested tables are not valid code and
> fail technique G134
> so they do not meet SC4.1.1.
> 
> Is that the way you see it?
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
> To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>;
> "'Johannes Koch'"
> <koch@w3development.de>; "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:29 PM
> Subject: RE: About tests 37-41 (headers) *wkey
> 
> 
> > Hmmm
> >
> > Do you mean does WCAG 2.0 forbid this?
> >
> > Or do you mean "is there and accessibility rule
> somewhere".
> >
> > If you mean does WCAG 2.0 forbid this you need to look
> ONLY at the success
> > criteria.  They are the only thing that forbids.
> >
> > If you want to know if the working group documented
> something specific
> > that
> > the success criteria forbid - look at the Common
> Failures.
> >
> > Techniques only show how to do things. Never what is or
> isn't allowed.
> >
> > Does that help clarify?
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> >
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 18:06:59 UTC