W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: why valid was Re: why XHTML

From: <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:31:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200306252331.h5PNVk417571@localhost.localdomain>
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 


    "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."


    "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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC