- From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:41:45 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> From: RUST Randal > It is much easier to understand a recommendation such > as XHTML 1.0 than WCAG 1.0 (or 2.0). Because XHTML's spec is a technical one. And there again, there's more than just technical details behind XHTML...what I'd refer to as the "ethos". E.g. using H1-H6 instead of non-structural markup. Yes, you can validate against the syntax of the language itself, but you can still write complete rubbish nonetheless. That's why there's similar discussions on other lists about "is this the right way to mark this type of content up?". > WCAG needs to be practical and measurable. And measuring results needs > to be simple, just like validating markup. Again, because WCAG is more than just a set of technical specs relating to syntax, whose validity can be verified programmatically, checking for accessibility will always require interpretation by (hopefully) knowledgeable individuals. Coupled with the huge number of possible "real world" scenarios, there will always be certain gray areas. Maybe we need a lot more best practice examples, but at the core I don't think it will be possible (or easy anyway) to pin all the points down for definite. As always, IMHO anyway. Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 12:43:26 UTC