| GL 3.1 Make text content readable and understandable. |
|
Techniques 7.2 and 8.3 are mapped to GL 3.1 but no specific success Criteria. I think both of these techniques should be mapped to GL 1.3 L1 SC 1 which is where
most of the other table related techniques are mapped. |
|
|
|
| GL 3.1 L1 SC1: The primary natural language or languages of the delivery unit can be programmatically determined. [I] |
|
- 4.1 Needs an XHTML example;
- Editorial note in 4.1 suggests discussion of HTTP headers and language. I think Yvette is handling this?
- In resource section of 4.1 add link to Language tags in HTML and XML which references RFC 3066 and ISO 639.
- Lisa and Wendy to propose HTML text direction technique
|
|
- Tests discuss both HTML and XHTML but examples of pass/fail are only provided for HTML; Suggest separate tests for XHTML or at least add XHTML pass/fail examples.
- Test 49 references ISO 639 for the correct language codes. This should also be mentioned in the HTML techniques.
|
|
| GL 3.1 L2 SC1: The natural language of each foreign passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined. [I] |
4.2 Identifying changes in language |
- per editorial note, need to add a definition of "Grade 2 braille contractions" to glossary
- update resource link to Language tagging in HTML and XML- it has been superceded by Language tags in HTML and XML
- Lisa and Wendy to review technique.
|
no tests |
Test needs to be created.- Per Team B plan Lisa and Wendy are going to modify tests 48 and 49 to create tests for this SC. |
|
| GL 3.1 L3 SC1: A mechanism is available for finding definitions for all words in text content. [I] |
|
- Technique 1.4 needs a code example.
- Providing just a glossary does not technically satisfy this SC since the SC requires that a mecahnism must be available for finding definitions for ALL words in the content.
A glossary only provides the definition of some words in the content, a reader would have to use another mechanism to find all words. Do we need to revist the wording
of this SC? it seems to imply that it is the web author's responsibility to provide a link to a dictionary in every delivery unit.
- Technique 1.4 should include a link to general information about how to determine what words should be included in a glossary.
- I would argue that 5.10 should not be associated with this SC since it is not appropriate for providing a definition for ALL words
|
no tests |
Test needs to be created for 1.4. Have to provide some guidance on when a glossary is required (or link to general technique) in order to create this test since (I believe that) a glossary is not required for all delivery units. |
|
| GL 3.1 L3 SC2: A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon. [I] |
|
Technique 5.10 needs a code example. |
no tests |
Need to develop a test for Technique 5.10. |
|
| GL 3.1 L3 SC3: A mechanism for finding the expanded form of acronyms and abbreviations is available. [I] |
|
Need to resolve issues surrounding use of abbr and acronym before finalizing techniques 5.2 and 5.3. See Issue 295 |
no tests |
Need to develop tests for all 3 techniques. |
|
| GL 3.1 L3 SC4: Section titles are descriptive. [V] |
no HTML techniques - general techniques are sufficient |
The initial Guide Doc for this SC suggests that HTML Techs 3.1 Section headings and 3.2 Header misuse should
be mapped here. I think these are advisory for this technique but not sufficient to satisfy it. |
Several tests about Frame titles are linked to this SC but the techniques themselves are not linked here.
|
Update the tests files to refer to the same GL and SC that the techniques do - GL 2.4 L2 SC4 in most cases. |
|
| GL 3.1 L3 SC5: reading ability |
no HTML techniques - general techniques are sufficient |
|
|
|
|