Comments on: WordPress 2.6 brings a lot of accessibility improvements!

By: Lunamedia

Lunamedia — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:22:42 +0000

As it’s the only thing on my page not validating, I can live with one error if it improves accesibility.

WordPress should be applauded for trying to push it’s implementation, so good for them I say.

By: Frank Pollacco

Frank Pollacco — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:25:39 +0000

WordPress version 2.6 is very functional, this is why I use it for my blog

By: Texas Labels

Texas Labels — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:02:17 +0000

It will never stop improving, thus I will never stop loving it.

By: willem

willem — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:11:20 +0000

i love wordpress 2.6, cheers

By: mai

mai — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:38:02 +0000

Good job. Iâ€™ve been using wordpress 2.6 and love it.

By: Bukmacher

Bukmacher — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:44:16 +0000

Good job . Greetings from Poland

By: software

software — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:52:16 +0000

thanks nice post

By: Bukmacher

Bukmacher — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:36:37 +0000

WordPress CMS is the best script for dynamic websites i ever used, version 2.6 is very functional

By: ahmed

ahmed — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:51:59 +0000

great post. i came to know about wordpress a lot. i have been using only the services of blogger. this is way too good.. gr8 post. was very informative

By: HGH

HGH — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:58:57 +0000

Good job. Iâ€™ve been using wordpress 2.6 and love it. Itâ€™s been great for my business.

By: Henri Sivonen

Henri Sivonen — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:15:24 +0000

First, getting new features is much more important than validating against a legacy validation target. ARIA adds markup, so ARIA can't validate against a legacy validation target such as XHTML 1.0 (without retroactively changing what XHTML 1.0 is). One could define a new validation target like "XHTML 1.0 plus ARIA" or "HTML 4.01 plus ARIA". However, XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 themselves are being replaced by HTML5 and the expectation is that ARIA will be included in HTML5 as ARIA matures, so I've opted to prototype an "HTML5 plus ARIA" validation target instead in Validator.nu. (Please note that the prototype is based on an older draft of ARIA and takes some liberties with it. The liberties taken or the way HTML5 and ARIA are integrated in the prototype aren't endorsed by any spec at this time.) Also, the normative validation formalism for XHTML 1.0 is DTDs. DTDs are woefully inadequate to capture the kind of interdependencies ARIA places on attributes. While it would be feasible to punch holes in a DTD to let ARIA through, DTDs don't work for detailed ARIA validation. HTML5 validation requires more advanced technology than DTDs to begin with, which also makes it more natural to prototype ARIA validation in the context of an HTML5 validator.

By: Ansgar

Ansgar — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:09:25 +0000

Marco, I am perfectly with you. However there are quite a lot of people out there who do not know about this cutting-edge-technology and thus they will only see one thing for sure: The page is not valid. Which then leads to the conclusion that it can not be accessible, because of priority two which says: “3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars.”

By: Marco

Marco — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:04:56 +0000

Hi Ansgar,

Yes, the fact that aria-induced pages currently do not validate in XHTML is a known issue, and documented at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-primer/#ariahtml
But if a page validates except for the aria-required attribute, that should still be OK. The WordPress team consciously made the decision to be in the lead here and provide ARIA support even though this will currently not validate on those attributes.

By: Ansgar

Ansgar — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:40:05 +0000

But now that aria-required=’true’ is set, the page does not validate anymore.