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

Re: more on ert

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:58:13 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

Your edits are good.

Here are some responses to your @@'s:

There are some misspellings and typos that need to be fixed.

The following phrase in 1.1.6, "Valid alternative representation element" 
is new and not defined.  I would like to use the WCAG language as much as 
possible.  I believe what you are referring to are "text and non-text 
equivalents."   refer to the glossary in WCAG for definitions.

you ask if we will be getting rid of the "discussion status" sections.  I 
think if there are no open issues for a technique, yes we can get rid of 
it.  otherwise, i would like to keep the open issues in-line.  one thing 
that i will do when it becomes my turn to edit is to incorporate the open 
issues into the document as we discussed.

1.1.7a and 1.1.7b.  i think we ought to make these 1.1.7 and 1.1.8.  Let's 
split the test files.

1.1.8a should be 1.1.9.  Also, the check is on the FRAME element, not the 
FRAMESET.  FRAMESET does not have a longdesc attribute. see 

@@LRK:: I don't understand why this is only for 3 or more frames. It we 
omit that aspect, then this becomes identical to the <FRAME> test and we 
can fold them back together

Refer to the discussion and resolution during the 31 January 2000 
minutes:   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/minutes/20000131.html

where you have changed "text" to "accessible HTML" - should it be 
"accessible markup?"  must it always be HTML?  might someone have some 
MathML embedded in an OBJECT if they are using an image to show a math 
equation? is that even possible?

I don't think we should emphasize elements and attributes (with the STRONG 
element). In previous versions of WCAG, we emphasized disabilitiy groups 
(and elements & attributes?). It distracted the reader as too much 
information was vying for their attention.  In the ERT, elements and 
attributes are in bullet points, i think that emphasizes them enough.

Len, can you estimate how many hours it will take you to finish going 
through the document?  Can you estimate when you will have these 
hours?  Perhaps Chris or I should have a go at finishing it up?

Theoretically, yes we can be editing different parts of the document.  If 
we collide it should let us know.  I have used CVS in this way, but not 
through jigedit - I am also wary <grin>.  But, I'd be happy to give it a 
go.  We can always recover older versions if necessary.


At 05:31 PM 3/1/00 , Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>Wendy, Chris, everybody,
>I got some more done, but, in spite of my resolve to just look at 
>presentation and wording, I wasn't able to ignore issues that popped 
>up.  So the document is peppered with @@LRK 's.
>I got to the point marked " @@@LRK got to here."
>It's still the same URL http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert-20000228.html
>Please take a look at the @@LRK issues and changes.  Do you think you can 
>check them out while I plow through the rest of the paper?
>Also, Wendy... theoretically one of the features of jigedit is that two 
>people can work on a document and then jigedit will just merge the two 
>modified documents... at least where modifications don't overlap.  At 
>least, that's how I assume it works, since it's an interface to CVS, which 
>has that very nice feature.
>Shall we do it that way?    Has that ever been tested?
>Even if we do I suggest we keep local copies in case something doesn't 
>work as advertised.
>At any rate, even you don't want to risk that would everyone take a look 
>at the comments and at the paper in general?  We want to keep this rolling 
>Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
>Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
>Department of Electrical Engineering
>Temple University
>423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122
>(215) 204-2247 (voice)
>(800) 750-7428 (TTY)

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 09:54:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:30 UTC