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: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <034401ca1527$402c66c0$c0853440$@edu>
L. David Baron wrote:
> 

David, to be perfectly clear these are my opinions only, and I do not
speak for WAI explicitly - any more than you would speak on behalf of
Mozilla. We know and understand the 'party line' but we do not define it.
OK?

> 
> 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.)

Yes, and this is the partial case with @summary today.

Ian's Draft Spec says: "Authors should not specify the summary attribute
on table elements." 
 [
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#warnings-for-obsolete-but-confo
rming-features ]

WAI's WCAG 2 says: "Use (Using) the summary attribute of the table element
to give an overview of data tables"
 [ http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H73 ]

(note: Ian suggests that the @summary attribute be obsolete but conforming
- HTML5's closest thing to deprecated - but then actively contradicts WCAG
with the above noted guidance)

> 
>   (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?

Can you provide an illustration/example here?  I cannot see how making
something better would at the same time make it non-conforming.
(Improving the taste of Diet Pepsi does not make it any less "diet" does
it?)

> 
>   (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?

I would see that as a win/win, so no

> 
>   (4) Does HTML5 contradict WCAG if it adds a new accessibility
>   feature whose use is not recommended or required by WCAG?

No, and I would urge that those new features be highlighted to the WCAG
WG, with a request to consider incorporating into the WCAG guidance. This
is not about stifling advances in technology any more than it is
"accessible websites must be boring" - it is simply not true!  I welcome
these advances, be they ARIA work, or work in SVG that ensures that the
visual aspect of what is rendered can also be conveyed in other ways.

But work *with* WAI / WCAG to promote these new features, not against or
outside of WAI / WCAG, something that apparently is not happening enough,
as witnessed by: "Authors should not specify the summary attribute on
table elements." 

JF 
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 17:16:46 GMT

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