- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:54:46 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 29/10/2013 19:55, Foliot, John wrote: > I get concerned whenever a hack or reliance on a bug is used to meet > “success” – it might work today, this month, and maybe even this year, > but experience has shown me that relying on a bug is a recipe for > problems down the road. While WCAG 2 no longer has a mandate to produce > conformant code (i.e. valid per the W3C validator), this is invalid > code, so we cannot be sure that it will work across all browsers nor all > browsers + AT configurations (as Andrew notes). It would be worth checking if the remedial behavior exhibited by browsers is actually codified as part of HTML5's algorithm for constructing the DOM (I doubt it though). If so, this moves from being a "bug" to being documented standard behavior, which should then also work in future. > I personally would even go so far as to suggest that any Technique that > also fails W3C validation should not be included in the WCAG Techniques > document – it is happy circumstance and nothing more. This is not the case here, though. The technique in question shows the correct code that would pass W3C validation. And just to echo what Andrew said: techniques are only informative, so talking about whether or not a technique should be failed does not make sense. You pass/fail based on the more tech-agnostic success criterion, not based on techniques. 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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke ______________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 08:55:12 UTC