W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Breaking Dependencies - @summary (FW: Call for Review: German WCAG 2.0 Candidate Authorized Translation)

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:02:24 -0700
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090804170224.GA3720@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Tuesday 2009-08-04 08:21 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2009-08-04 07:57 -0700, John Foliot wrote:
> > The WAI documents are now available in multiple languages - furthering the
> > outreach and guidance that WAI provides.  Having the HTML WD contradict
> > WAI means that it is contradicting not only the English version, but the
> 
> I'd like to further understand the definition of contradict here:
> 
>   (1) Does HTML5 contradict WCAG if it removes a feature whose use
>   is recommended or required by WCAG?  (I'm pretty sure the answer
>   to this one is yes.)
> 
>   (2) Does HTML5 contradict WCAG if it improves a feature whose use
>   is recommended or required by WCAG, and the improvement makes what
>   is required / recommended by WCAG no longer conforming?
> 
>   (3) Does HTML5 contradict WCAG if it improves a feature whose use
>   is recommended or required by WCAG, but the improvement leaves
>   what is required / recommended by WCAG as conforming?
> 
>   (4) Does HTML5 contradict WCAG if it adds a new accessibility
>   feature whose use is not recommended or required by WCAG?

To clarify a little why I'm asking this:

If the group believes that the answers are 1=Yes and 2,3,4=No (which
was my initial belief), then I stand by my statement yesterday that
John is being obstructionist (though the way I said it was over the
top, and I apologize for that).  This is because if 2=No then an
argument that Ian's changes should be reverted needs to explain why
they are not an improvement, and I haven't seen John doing that.

If the group believes that the answers are 1,2=Yes and 3,4=No then
I'd be disappointed that we can't use the definition of document
conformance to encourage / mandate adoption of improvements in
accessibility support.  But I'd be willing to accept it as a
principle if we follow it consistently.

If the group believes that the answers are 1,2,3=Yes and 4=No, then
I'd be extremely upset that the group is unable to improve the
accessibility of existing HTML features, but I could live with it if
there were really consensus.

I would, however, be unable to accept 1,2,3,4=Yes, since it would
mean that HTML5 would have to remove accessibility mechanisms for
video, canvas, etc., which I believe is unacceptable.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 17:03:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT