- From: Vicente Luque Centeno <vlc@it.uc3m.es>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 12:37:51 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Can Dave Ragget's Tidy [1] be considered as an AT? It fails with Chris' example (and not for that absence of the title or head elements, but for the presence of the <stuff> tag). Tidy produces an error message and no output for this input. And what about AT that rely on Tidy? They will also fail! [1] http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/ Cheers! > Chris Ridpath wrote: > >> Hmmm. Here's a document that's well formed... >> >> <html> >> <stuff><p>Hello World</p></stuff> >> </html> >> >> It can be "parsed unambiguously, and the relationships in the resulting >> data >> structure are also unambiguous". But this document could cause problems for >> AT. > > If you can prove that there is AT that has problems with your document, the > WG may need to rethink this SC. Otherwise I'm afraid they won't. >
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 10:37:56 UTC