Comments on: WCAG 2.0, Validity and The Holy Trinity

By: JackP

JackP — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:46:07 +0000

Perhaps “according to specification” then, rather than using the word “validity”. Flash and PDF presumably having specifications of some sort…

Unambigous parsing is certainly a step towards that, but I don’t think it’s enough — and it looks like the working group agree with me, as they’ve made 4.1.1 stronger than just ‘unambiguous parsing’ — albeit not quite as much as I would have liked.

]]>

By: Isofarro

Isofarro — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:53:21 +0000

“Validity is a concept that, whilst related to universality, if not achieved may result in accessibility problems with a particular user agent”

Validity only has a defined meaning when the content is described in HTML. For example, what’s valid Flash, valid PDF or a valid Excel Spreadsheet, a valid Windows Media movie, a valid MP3 soundtrack? There isn’t anything relevant or realistic. But if you take the approach of non-ambigious, that is a concept that translates usefully into content other than HTML. Validity could mean something in largely text markup formats, but nothing in the realm of binary-encoded content. Yet unambigiously parsed means something in all of them.

The advantage of unambigiously parsed formats is that they are open to be easier repurposed - and that’s a key feature to making content accessible.

]]>

By: OPC Toolbox » Blog Archive » WCAG 2.0, Validity and The Holy Trinity

OPC Toolbox » Blog Archive » WCAG 2.0, Validity and The Holy Trinity — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:49:51 +0000

[...] strong argument for the importance of validation. WCAG 2 may just address the [...]

]]>

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:57:51 +0000

Amen. That simple fact that matching to a published grammar will allow future user agents to identify the rules a site was developed according to is hugely valuable. It may be possible to design a website which is accessible today without validation; but without that formalized grammar, who knows how that same website might be viewed in 10 years.

Perhaps many technologist types tend to assume that any given site will be re-developed and re-designed to make use of modern technologies; and that it’s therefore only necessary to develop for the technology of the moment, but it seems more reasonable to me to assume the opposite.

]]>