- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:32:42 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > David, can you clarify where this requirement is spelled out? In many > cases it doesn't make sense - if I use javascript to modify the DOM, I'm > not modifying the HTML that has the validation linkage, I'm modifying > the browsers interpretation initial interpretation of that HTML. Coming in a bit late on this, but purely from a conceptual point of view (leaving aside the specific case of flash and the current need to actually break validation one way or another to get it to work in most browsers): are you suggesting that once the HTML is loaded into the browser, it's ok to make any sorts of DOM modifications (taking it to the extreme, even to the point where the DOM effectively doesn't carry a recongisable HTML document anymore)? Considering that recent assistive technology doesn't just refer to the HTML that was originally loaded (before modification), but to the "live" DOM itself, this could lead down a dangerous slope... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 01:32:49 UTC