W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Summing up the debate about validity at Priority 1 or 2

From: Ineke van der Maat <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:01:49 +0200
Message-ID: <004301c577c9$cf8d6850$0201a8c0@inekem>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Hello Bruce

>Another concern has been that WAI stands to loose credibility.

I think it is more worse: w3c is loosing credibility when it doesnot  take
its own recommendations seriously.

>Also please keep in mind that almost none of the WCAG1 P2 or P3 items made
>it into 508 1194.22.
In germany is valid code a p1  (they toke priority 1 and 2 together to
requirement 1) and there is even discussion to develop a DIN-norm for
accessible websites.
http://www.macximal.de/weblog/2005/06/din-zertifizier.php or

It probably does not matter what w3c does, Microsoft made some parts of xaml
and avalon for longhorn available for Windows xp. Can be downloaded at
http://www.xamlon.com/software/ and  http://www.xamlblogs.com/  and I even
could read this:

"XAML with Avalon can do the work of:
SVG     -     Scalable Vector Graphics
PDF     -      Portable Document Format
HTML   -     HyperText Markup Language
WMF   -      Windows Media Format
SWF   -       Shockwave Format"-

in a website of a firm that developed software (Aurora)  for xaml/avalon.
see http://www.mobiform.com

Is nice when I can do with the same code so many things  and it can also
handle Windows forms and it is very accessible as nothing ever before, wrote
somebody of Mobiform on a svg-list.

Also nice:IE6  can handle it
XAML/Avalon app's can be hosted in IE6 with full code behind
(known as an Express application). The app runs in a security

It does not use css but a xml style syntax in the code as :
  <Style TargetType="{x:Type Button}">
    <Setter Property="Control.Foreground" Value="Red"/>
        <Button Content="Hello" />
        <Button Content="Hello" />
        <Button Content="Hello" />

I thought that css was also existing for bandwidth savings.

But what is w3c-wcag doing: telling that own w3c- recommendations are not
important. Implicit tells it that contributions made on w3c-mailinglists are
also not taken seriously and it is wasting of time..also when it are
contributions about issues making recommendations more accessible.

Ineke van der Maat
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 08:01:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:25 UTC