- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:31:59 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14107 --- Comment #19 from theimp@iinet.net.au 2012-02-05 23:31:56 UTC --- > The checkpoint does not normatively require the use of the summary attribute it normatively requires the provision of summary information for data tables. The example of the summary attribute is from the techniques document which is non normative. I've been over this, in comment #4 and comment #6 primarily - there is no indication within WCAG 1.0 as to how such examples are to be interpreted. However, the example is in a normative section (Checkpoint 5.5), and is not written to indicate that other techniques might be usable (as most such examples are). If the reading that I've described in this bug is a mis-reading, then it is a mis-reading that the world's top web accessibility experts and senior policymakers have been making for over ten years. > The abstract of the techniques document states: That, on the other hand, is completely non-normative. Furthermore, as I mentioned in comment #16, no alternatives are actually offered in that document or in any other related document - which does not mean that none exist, but combined with the normative text, it does indicate why such an interpretation could be reasonably drawn. > Priority 3 No, because the Priorities are organized into Conformance Levels, and these are the levels specified by policy. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#Conformance The Priorities do not specify Conformance: they specify the impact of conformance. (If they did, you'd have the ridiculous situation where claiming conformance to Level AAA would require meeting only Level A checkpoints). -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 23:32:01 UTC