[Irl-dean] WCAG 2.0 and "validity"

[Barry McMullin]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Mark Magennis wrote:

> I haven't been following this discussion (too technical for me) but I
> would have thought there may be an issue about putting people into a
> "lowest common denominator" situation by forcing them to follow
> standards, not only when they are sensible and effective, but also when
> they are unnecessary and restrictive. For example, if you want to use
> Flash for a banner, you have to add an EMBED tag for cross browser
> compatibility. But then the code is not valid since EMBED is not part of
> the HTML specification. However, not allowing someone to use a Flash
> banner for this reason is rather harsh and does not necessarily enhance
> the accessibility or usability of their site. It may, in fact, reduce
> it.

On the specific issue of EMBED (which *is* a very good example -
for both sides of the debate!), here is an eloquent statement of
the frustration that seeking validity can lead to:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2004Apr/0069.html>

... but check out the replies.  Ian Hickson offers an example of
embedding flash, exclusively with valid HTML 4 (i.e. based on the
OBJECT element) which - he claims - solves this problem!

Of course I'm not sure whether he is right; and there's the rub.

To guarantee "cross-browser" compatibility in the strongest case
one would have to try this "solution" against many many browsers
in many many version and platform variations.  And if it failed
against even one of these???? Or worse, worked for all of them,
but failed on (say) the mystical IE 7.0 whenever it arrives?

So: cross-browser backwards-compatibility is a "good thing" - but
it too can seriously inhibit creative innovation (which,
remember, is precisely what the OBJECT element is, compared to
the half-baked EMBED!).

> I predict this one will run and run.

That's for sure!

Best - Barry.