Re: 5.1

Lisa Seeman writes:
 > I was looking again at 5.1 and I am a bit confused. Are requiring that all
 > HTML passes the HTML validate for minimal conformance or level two?

Yes, definitely, and no I wouldn't classify validity errors. The
document is either valid, or it is not. As an illustration of the
problem, Emacspeak supports the pre-processing of web pages by an XSLT
transform to improve accessibility. The more invalid the content is,
the worse the results are likely to be - often causing the XML/HTML
parser to crash. Of course, the tool developers could work around the
problem, but obviously this would involve more work.

At level 2 I think the requirement should be one of validity. Invalid
documents also tend to be poorly designed in other respects. Of
course, given a valid document a tool can make assumptions (based on
the DTD or schema) regarding its structure. An accessible document
should be predictable in this respect so that it can be transformed
more easily.