- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
- To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> But there are also some problems in the validation-issue. It is easy to
>> make the transitional versions of HTML and XHTML validate but not that
>> easy if you opt for "strict" or XHTML 1.1.
"Strict" does not mean "an entirely new language." It merely means
"purer." I suppose it is in some way more difficult to use Strict
DOCTYPEs, but not by a huge margin.
By far the most important thing is valid code. The flavour is less
important, because the factors that distinguish valid code from tag soup
*are identical in all valid pages*.
> Personally I would like to see "validation" replaced with "Prior to
> attempting a compliancy check against WCAG, ensure that all markup and
> style languages in use are syntactically valid".
A fabulous idea.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:13:00 UTC