E-mail List Archives
Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without <body>, etc?
From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Apr 21, 2015 12:43PM
- Next message: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without, etc?"
- Previous message: Duff Johnson: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without , etc?"
- Next message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without, etc?"
- Previous message in Thread: Duff Johnson: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without , etc?"
- View all messages in this Thread
On 21 April 2015 at 19:15, Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> This would get you into the accessibility supported question. If the
> browser interprets the content without the DOCTYPE and presents it to the
> user without any ambiguity, then it is not going to fail 4.1.1 in my
> opinion. If the browser chokes on the content because it needs the DOCTYPE
> to render it properly for users, then you would have a 4.1.1 issue.
I disagree with you here; the wording of the criteria makes reference to
'specifications'. There is no way to determine if a tag is complete or is
nested correctly or requires an end tag without reference to a
specification. In HTML the way the specification used is identified is via
the doctype.
--
Regards
SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
- Next message: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without, etc?"
- Previous message: Duff Johnson: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without , etc?"
- Next message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without, etc?"
- Previous message in Thread: Duff Johnson: "Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without , etc?"
- View all messages in this Thread