- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:33:45 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 14:53 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Apr 17, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:21 +1000, Ben Boyle wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > >>> All of these are subjective conformance criteria that are key > >>> accessibility questions. > >>> > >>> All of these also apply to HTML4 documents. > >>> > >>> I see no way to make these anything but subjective. How do you > >>> suggest we > >>> address these problems? > >> > >> I suggest leaving them to WCAG, to avoid repetition and potential > >> conflict (should WCAG in some incompatible way). > > > > > > That's one of the more interesting suggestions I've seen in > > this discussion. It seems like a good way to reduce > > our workload by leveraging work done elsewhere. > > Semantics of elements are not solely accessibility issues. I do not > think it makes sense to define them solely in an accessibility > document separate from the spec. If I understand correctly, the suggestion isn't about changing definitions or semantics but rather about replacing conformance constraints with an informative reference to WCAG. Hmm... I was going to explain by example, but I don't actually see a conformance constraint corresponding to "Using <h1> to identify a header rather that big text." I see: "The h1-h6 elements and the header element are headings." -- http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#headings0 So... I suppose I don't understand the suggestion after all. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 22:32:57 UTC