- From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:19:45 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> From: Jesper Tverskov [...] > Making validation a "level one success Criteria" could make > is even more > difficult to get web content authors to shift to the better "strict" > versions of HTML and XHTML. I'd question what is inherently "better" about strict or XHTML, with regards to accessibility? I'd posit that even valid HTML4.01 transitional can be accessible provided that the other WCAG2.0 checkpoints (and associated html/css techniques) are followed (and effectively, if you follow things like the separation of content and presentation, even if you declare HTML4.01 transitional, it will end up looking more like HTML4.01 strict anyway) > Maybe validation should be level one for the transitional versions and > level two for the strict versions? I would like to hear the opinion of > other members of this list. But the idea of the main WCAG2.0 document is to remain technology agnostic. Adding this sort of detail sounds like a bad move. And, to paraphrase Alastair: if you use XHTML you need to make damn sure it validates anyway. If you can't guarantee validity for whatever reason (lack of knowledge, resources, whatever) then stick with HTML (but make sure that's valid). Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 13:21:21 UTC