WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without <body>, etc?

for

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Apr 21, 2015 2:20PM

That's why valid code automatically passes 4.1.1, but code with validation issues require that authors do the work to make sure that content reads correctly. Authors cannot assume, they need to verify.

Of course, valid code simplifies conformance with 4.1.1 greatly.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Steve Faulkner
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:13 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without <body>, etc?

From Understanding WCGA 2.0 Parsing:

Since repair techniques vary among user agents, authors cannot assume that
> content will be accurately parsed into a data structure or that it
> will be rendered correctly by specialized user agents, including
> assistive technologies, unless the content is created according to the
> rules defined in the formal grammar for that technology. In markup
> languages, errors in element and attribute syntax and failure to
> provide properly nested start/end tags lead to errors that prevent
> user agents from parsing the content reliably. Therefore, the Success
> Criterion requires that the content can be parsed using only the rules of the formal grammar.
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat-parses.html

Reads pretty clear cut to me, as without a conforming doctype, a document will not be parsed by user agents "using only the rules of the formal grammar"

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>;

On 21 April 2015 at 20:50, Duff Johnson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> > On Apr 21, 2015, at 14:47, Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
>
> >> Ah, so doctype would be required for WCAG 2.0 if it resolves
> ambiguities, but not because it's required by the HTML specification?
> >
> > That's correct.
>
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
> Is this a generalizable point?
>
> Would you say that metadata (<!DOCTYPE> being an example of such)
> which resolves ambiguities in content is required for WCAG 2.0
> conformance generally?
>
> Duff.
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >