Of course - this is just my interpretation! I don't speak for WCAG. On Feb 9, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > "4.1.1 Parsing: In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags, elements are nested according to their specifications, elements do not contain duplicate attributes, and any IDs are unique, except where the specifications allow these features. " > > > thanks James, that makes sense. though the wording could be clearer, while I have always considered optional end tags to be OK others have interpreted wcag as requiring them. > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML 5.1 > > > On 9 February 2014 15:10, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote: > Steve, > The complete text is > "4.1.1 Parsing: In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags, elements are nested according to their specifications, elements do not contain duplicate attributes, and any IDs are unique, except where the specifications allow these features. " > > As you have stated, the html specification allows certain end tags to be optional and some have no end tags so there is no issue with 4.1.1 as the specification allows these features. > > Regards, > James > > > On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > > criteria 4.1.1 [1] parsing, requires complete start and end tags for all elements. > > > > "In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags" > > > > in HTML end tags certain end tags are optional [2] and certain elements have no end tags (<img>, <input> etc.) How do we explain/reconcile this disparity? > > > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#ensure-compat > > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission: > > -- > > > > Regards > > > > SteveF > > HTML 5.1 > >
Received on Sunday, 9 February 2014 15:37:02 UTC