- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:25:40 -0400
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Apologies for not commenting on this earlier. Laboo asks with regard to WCAG 1.0 P3 10.4: > Is there any valid alternative to pass this hard accessibility validation? And suggests: <input name="textfield" type="text" value="word"> Does this example actually work? I thought default place holder text was much harder than that? Colin wrote regarding the value attribute in input elements: > This indicates to me that value is not a required attribute > as far as the spec is concerned. Is there anything wrong with *WCAG* requiring *optional* attributes? Does the above actually result in *invalid* code? (I think that was one of Laboo's concerns.) I agree with Colin that you can't rely on the results of automatic tests to decide how you are doing. Do you really think your site is otherwise Triple A conformant? That would amaze and delight me.
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 20:25:51 UTC