Paul Noone wrote:
So, given that the W3C buttons enforce compliancy by returning errors if the page isn't valid, what's wrong with them again?
WCAG buttons don't link to any validator. And, of course, accessibility cannot be checked in any satisfactory way without *human* testing (let me just go and stick alt="image" on every image in my site, so I can pass an automated checker). And passing automated validation for (X)HTML does not necessarily make a site "better", as I've seen horribly non-semantic stuff that, on the surface, follows the syntax, but not the grammar, of the W3C spec (something like a triple nested table layout with lots of bolds and ems etc, which has merely been converted to XHTML by replacing table markup with lots of DIVS, b/i replaced with strong/em, and oodles of spans thrown in for "good" measure).
-- 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 __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
