Edit comment LC-1064 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1144 Next: LC-1063

Comment LC-1064: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
4.1: There should be (preferably at Level 1) a requirement for content to validate

Proposed Change:

Create a Level 1 SC requiring validation; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMC] Discussed in the 29 March 2007 telecon: Resolution: close as proposed http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/03/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html {not accept} Response:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0109.html New issue: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=2337; Resolution: The working group looked at this topic carefully over an extended period of time and concluded that requiring strict adherence to all aspects of specifications does not necessarily result in an increase in accessibility. For example, it is possible to create invalid pages that present no accessibility barriers. It is also possible in certain situations to enhance accessibility through the use of markup that is not part of the specification. The working group must work within its charter and only include things that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use technologies according to specification" and validity do relate to accessibility. However, others do not. So requiring validity would take us beyond our charter. We do recommend it though and it is our number one technique listed for conforming to SC 4.1.1.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)