- From: <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:31:45 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 25 Jun, Matt May wrote: > Valid content obviates this need. Therefore, valid is good for > accessibility. Then we agree. Valid HTML is as good for accessibility as valid XHTML. >> So an XHTML-supporting browser SHOULD stop on encountering an error, >> then ? > > No. Why should the user be punished for the crimes of the author? In a > perfect world, from this standpoint, authors attempting to publish > invalid content would be refused at the server. But there is no benefit http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#uaconf "In order to be consistent with the XML 1.0 Recommendation [XML], the user agent must parse and evaluate an XHTML document for well-formedness." http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml "Definition: A rule which applies to all well-formed XML documents. Violations of well-formedness constraints are fatal errors." It would seem to me, and to others, that this means: An XHTML supporting user agent should, when encountering a XHTML document that is not well-formed, treat that as a violating of the well-formedness constraint, aka fatal error. I am quite sure that there is something here I miss. I hope I miss something here. Tomorrow will be a *good* day if someone can show me exactly what I miss. > fail to render that resource because of invalidity. That only makes the > content more inaccessible. That's why this is such a sticky problem, > and why the WAI guidelines all address content repair in one way or > another: because it's not a perfect world. Sticky indeed. -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 19:32:06 UTC