[Irl-dean] Opinions: HTML Transitional and WCAG Double-A

[Gez Lemon]

On 09/01/07, Barry McMullin <mcmullin at eeng.dcu.ie> wrote:
> Yes; and then I'm back to my response to Gez' comment; assuming
> such constructs do indeed exist (i.e., constructs which are
> permitted in Transitional but not in Strict, and which do not
> intrinsically imply violation of any WCAG P1 or P2 checkpoint)
> then I'd actually quite like to have a list of these!

The only element that is still widely used in the transitional DTD
that isn't in the strict DTD is APPLET, but that can be implemented
using OBJECT. There are lots of deprecated elements, such as DIR,
MENU, FONT, etc., but these are not so common, and fail other
checkpoints (such as 3.3: use style sheets to control layout and
presentation, and 3.6: mark up lists and list items properly). Most of
the attributes that have been deprecated either belong to deprecated
elements (such as alt for applet), or are presentational (align,
valign, bgcolor, etc.). The only exceptions to this are language
(script), start (ol), value (li), and version (html).

> Gez
> suggested the target attribute; I'm not quite so sure, and
> neither apparently is Eoin, though for different reasons:

Just to make my position clear on this - I am not suggesting that it
is okay to use the target attribute; I'm merely stating that opening a
link in a new window is not a violation of WCAG 1.0. I thought you
were seeking instances where using a transitional doctype should not
be considered a failure of WCAG 1.0, and I believe this is one
instance. If JavaScript cannot be used, and the developer absolutely
wants new windows, then the target attribute is the only feasible
option. I really don't condone this, but it couldn't be considered a
failure under WCAG 1.0 - in the same way that depending on shape or
location to impart information is a huge accessibility problem, but is
not a failure of WCAG 1.0.

Best regards,

Gez



-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com