W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: comments on guidelines

From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:49:24 -0500
Message-Id: <199809221855.NAA05414@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hello,

there are two guidelines that relate to this topic: 

A.9 - Ensure that pages using newer W3C features (technologies) will 
transform gracefully into an accessible form if the feature is not 
supported or is turned off. (includes frames, scripts, style sheets, 
applets). 
C.1 - Only use technologies defined in a W3C specification and use them in 
an accessible manner. Where not possible, provide an accessible 
alternative pag that does. (includes PDF and other formats, using latest 
W3C specs, avoid deprecated elements, and how to create alternative pages) 

Therefore, we have said that non-W3C technologies *can* be used. Also, 
although both applets and scripts are not W3C technologies, they are 
supported by W3C language features (i.e., the APPLET, SCRIPT, and OBJECT 
elements). Personally, I think the two guidelines are not in contradiction 
and handle the issues well. 

However, if people disagree, perhaps the 2 guidelines could be combined
into one 
guideline that says, "Newer W3C technologies and non-W3C technologies need 
to transform gracefully". 

One worry is that separating "new W3C" from "non-W3C" would cause problems 
in the future. Case in point, the "behaviors" proposal that will make 
scripting/dynamic content a W3C activity. Therefore, currently it is not a 
"non-W3C" technology but in the future it will be a "new W3C" technology. 

Also, keep in mind that applet does not just refer to Java and script does 
not just refer to JavaScript - there's VBscript, PERL, or whatever else 
people are able to use. 

--the editors 


At 02:31 PM 9/21/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Nir said:
>Only use w3c recommendations means we can't use JavaScript or HTML 2.0
>
>And I reply:
>Well, HTML 2.0 in so far as it is a subset of HTML 3.2 or HTML 4.0 is 
>fine. Actually, HTML 3.2 is not altogether OK, because it allows for IMG 
>without ALT (for example)
>
>And Javascript is not really accessible. I don't if it is not used at 
>all. But that won't cut much ice in the real world.
>
>Perhaps we should think about where the guideline fits - it is of crucial 
>importance that platform-independence can be maintained, and the 
>requirement for using w3c recommendations was meant to stop people 
>relying on proprietary extensions to provide any information. So maybe 
>something like:
>
>(Prority 1) Ensure that all content is presented and comprehensible when 
>correctly rendered according to w3c recommendations for HTML 4.0, AND 
>that all the foregoing guidelines have been followed with regard to 
>content media (eg movies, scripts, etc) for which there is no w3c 
>recommendation
>
>(or something like that)
>
>Charles McCN
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 1998 14:55:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT