[Nfb-web] validation

[Lloyd Rasmussen]

Hi, Mark.  Validity of HTML is only tangentially related to accessibility,
especially if the document type definition you are validating against is a
"loose" rather than a "strict" DTD.  Hardly anyone uses HTML 4.01 strict,
because so many constructs are deprecated.  You can make many web sites that
are syntactically invalid, and you can also make many valid pages that have
accessibility problems.  

Having said all that, if you expect your page to behave predictably in
multiple browsers, including Firefox and Lynx, validation to a strict DTD
can help.  But this is hard to achieve, and probably impossible with WYSIWYG
authoring tools and content management systems.

I am still having fun learning how to manage the NFB of Maryland website.
It was originally created in FrontPage, and I am updating it in either
UltraEdit or Microsoft Expression Web Designer beta, with Window-Eyes.

Lloyd Rasmussen, Kensington, Maryland
Home:  http://lras.home.sprynet.com
Work:  http://www.loc.gov/nls
http://www.nfbmd.org 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfb-web-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-web-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Senk
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:08 PM
> To: NFB Webmaster's List
> Subject: [Nfb-web] validation - Re: our website and accessibility
> 
> How do you all feel about valid html?
> 
> I have been making more use of the checker at
> validator.w3.org  for checking xhtml and css files.
> 
> I was surprised that nfb.org blindscience.org and nfblink.org all have
> some errors in the html code.
> 
> Should we expect valid html code from authoring tools?  Should affiliate
> webmasters take the extra time to check our pages?
> 
> Mark in Pittsburgh
> 
>