RE: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)

Hi Ineke, 

If a technology is not supported by user agents including AT it should not
be in a baseline -- and the content would not conform to WCAG 2.0.    

So I don't see where you see this as a failure.

Can you explain?


PS - Please do not swear on this list.  It isn't a sign of understanding or
wanting to understand.

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at 

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Ineke van der Maat
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:33 AM
To: Johannes Koch;
Subject: Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)


Can anybody tell me what to write in the baseline whenthe page contains
xhtml that is delived as xml. You know IE does not support this now.

but by creating a baseline for xhtml the site is accessible for all, also
for those who have IE?

hetre is the big failure that i have to agree with Joe statement: to hell to
WCAG 2.0

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Johannes Koch" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)

> Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> You don't pass a success criterion by passing a technique test.   The
>> technique tests only tell you that you pass the technique. Whether a
>> technique is sufficient to meet
> I assume there's something missing here. But yes, the "Understanding" 
> document lists techniques that the WCAG WG thinks to be sufficient to pass

> a success criterion.
>> If you pass a technique but trigger a failure - then you fail.  No matter
>> who's technique.
> Ah, interesting. That's a clear statement  :-)
>> We document common failures to make it easier for people to avoid them.
>> They are failures whether we document them or not.    They are failures 
>> not
>> because they are documented but because you can't do them and meet the
>> success criterion.    If someone creates a technique that they say meets 
>> the success criterion but
>> it involves something that is documented as a failure then
>> a) they are mistaken
> That's what I meant with interfering.
>> or
>> b) the failure is written up poorly and should and would be changed.  A 
>> properly written failure is always a failure unless or until the success
>> criterion is changed. Does that help?
> Yes, thanks.
> -- 
> Johannes Koch
> Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
>                          (Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2006 19:01:20 UTC