Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received 11 e-mails spam from
different people who were contacted by the same "Group". Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have another word for them. Spammers. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with their lives except raise hell. I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian nor is that related to my question. Houstin _____ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation On 13 Jan 2010, at 21:30, Chabot, Elliot wrote: The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2, <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar. Err, yes. As I said (and you quoted!): Checkpoint 3.2 says "Create documents that validate to published formal grammars.", but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document. Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers to 'markup' rather than 'documents'). -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
