W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2004

Fwd: Re: Proposal: reincorporate multiplexer into main doc

From: <boland@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 19:59:35 -0400
Message-ID: <1097193575.4165d867e35fc@webmail.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org



----- Forwarded message from boland@nist.gov -----
    Date: Thu,  7 Oct 2004 19:58:28 -0400
    From: boland@nist.gov
Reply-To: boland@nist.gov
 Subject: Re: Proposal: reincorporate multiplexer into main doc
      To: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>

Initial thought: should we involve WCAG WG in consideration of this proposal 
as early as possible (since it may affect them also)?  Also possibly WAI CG?
Thanks and best wishes, Tim Boland NIST

 Quoting Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>:

> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Jan and I have been discussing how to deal with the WCAG 1/2 ambiguity. 
> At the last f2f, we had the idea of a multiplexer document that would be 
> a second Recommendation, and would point to WCAG 1 for conformance until 
> WCAG 2 came out, at which point it would be updated.
> 
> We agreed that this is probably not really the best way to go about 
> things, due to the complexity it would cause us and the readers of the 
> spec. So I'd like to propose the following:
> 
> 1) Bring the contents of this multiplexer document back into ATAG 2 proper;
> 2) Hold ATAG 2 at Proposed Recommendation status until WCAG 2 is at the 
> same level;
> 3) Work on the WCAG 2 conformance requirements when it is complete; and
> 4) Release WCAG 2 and ATAG 2 simultaneously.
> 
> The benefits of this approach are that we will only offer one target 
> document, and no complicating directions coming from elsewhere; and that 
> maintenance work on the document itself will be zero once it goes to 
> Recommendation. Additionally, should WCAG 2 zig when we expected it to 
> zag, we will be prepared to update our document to adequately reflect 
> that. (However, should WCAG in fact XAG, then we have a whole different 
> problem. Ha ha ha. Sorry, just a little WAI humor.)
> 
> The drawback would be that we will then be tied to WCAG 2's development 
> schedule. However, this is minor. Proposed Rec is usually a stable 
> enough status that developers of authoring tools will be prepared to 
> work toward it. Additionally, I believe that ATAG 2 would receive much 
> more attention, and be better connected to WCAG 2 long term, if they are 
> released and promoted together at Recommendation. This has been done 
> with other specs, most recently RDF and OWL, with success.
> 
> Thoughts? Concerns?
> 
> -
> m
> 
> 
> 
> 



----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Friday, 8 October 2004 00:00:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:51 UTC