Re: Basing conformance for accessibility questions on subjective determinations

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