W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2000

Re: a proposed plan for publishing a public working draft mid-February

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:40:28 -0500
Message-ID: <02e801bf62b5$0b7e4350$b040968e@ic.utoronto.ca>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Wendy,

I'm happy to leave the NULL and 'space' alt text issues until we get more
info in the form of a survey.

> 3.6  has this been discussed in the group?
>
No this issue hasn't been discussed in the group yet so I'm jumping the gun
here. I wasn't sure what the original intention of the guideline was but
your explanation makes it clear.

Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>; Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: a proposed plan for publishing a public working draft
mid-February


> Chris wrote:
>
> My current open issues are:
>
> 1.1.A - NULL alt text - allowed or not
> 1.1.A - Space "  " alt text - allowed or not
> 3.6 - "Mark up lists and list items properly" - I'm not sure how to do
this
>
>
> Wendy responded:
>
> i think that 1.1.A will only be solved by user testing and gathering
> data.  we can put our best guess in the public draft with a note that says
> "awaiting data to make firm decision."  there are too many opinions
> floating around about this one.  i don't want to open it up for discussion
> again until we have data.  i proposed a survey, the response seemed to be
> that this was a good idea.  no one volunteered to create the survey.
there
> were questions as to what it would look like.  in our next meeting i think
> we ought to discuss this and assign someone an action item. I'm willing to
> do this if no one else volunteers, however i would like to see action
items
> being taken by a wider variety of participants on the list.
>
> 3.6  has this been discussed in the group?  could you point me to the
> discussion in the archives or in minutes?  is the issue that one may
> identify a list but aren't sure if it is marked up correctly?  a hack that
> people used to use is an LI outside of a list to force indentation.  or a
> UL with lots of Ps.  I believe an HTML validator would pick these up (this
> ought to be verified).
>
> i also think lots of single item lists is suspicious.  e.g.
> <UL>
>    <LI>
> </UL>
> <UL>
>    <LI>
> </UL>
>
> or deeply nested lists:
> <UL>
> <UL>
> <UL>
> <UL>
> <UL>
> <UL>
>    <LI>
> </UL>
> </UL>
> </UL>
> </UL>
> </UL>
> </UL>
>
> so - anything that would indicate that a list is being used for
formatting.
>
> the repair is to transform to appropriate markup (most likely LI -> P) and
> use style sheets (Or a table - yikes!) for layout.
>
> --wendy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
> To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 1:35 PM
> Subject: a proposed plan for publishing a public working draft
mid-February
>
>
> > How are the general reviews of ERT coming along?  I have not seen any
> > comments sent to the list.
> >
> > At the 3 January meeting [1] we decided to publish our first public
> working
> > draft in mid-February. To make that deadline we determined that
> > 1. everyone needed to review the ERT in its entirety,
> > 2. we would collect open issues,
> > 3. clean up major issues as best we could before publishing a public
> > working draft (rather than internal working drafts that are public.)
> >
> > Len sent e-mail last week asking for an intermediate draft before the
> > Feburary goal.
> >
> > I propose that:
> >
> > 1. people review the document and send general comments to the list by
> next
> > monday's meeting (24 January).
> > 2. I will publish an open issues list on Tuesday (25 January).
> > 3. Chris and I will incorporate editorial comments and release another
> > working draft on Friday (28 January).
> > 4.  Open issues will be on the agenda for the meeting on 31 January.
> > 5. I will update the open issues list on Tuesday 1 February
> > 6. Chris and I will published an updated internal working draft on
friday,
> > 4 February.
> > 7. open issues will be discussed on monday 7 february.
> > 8. at the 14 February meeting determine if we want to make the 18
February
> > draft public.
> >
> > therefore, we could start the following pattern:
> > Tuesdays: open issues updated.
> > Fridays: new working draft posted.
> > Mondays: discuss open issues and evaluate how close we are to going
> public.
> >
> > and then every 3 months take the most current working draft public.
> >
> > thoughts?
> > --wendy
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/minutes/20000103.html
> > --
> > wendy a chisholm
> > world wide web consortium
> > web accessibility initiative
> > madison, wi usa
> > tel: +1 608 663 6346
> > /--
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 14:41:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:34 GMT