W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Last Call for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:31:36 -0500
Message-ID: <36E6E4B8.1AED6B59@w3.org>
To: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
CC: w3c wai gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c i18n ig <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Misha Wolf wrote:
> Review of:
>     Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
>     1999-02-26
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990226
> As there are currently lots of W3C documents requiring review by the I18N IG
> and we have three of our own WDs under development, I have reviewed this
> document myself.  I am copying the I18N IG, in case any members wish to
> supplement, or take issue with, my comments.


Thank you for your prompt review. The editors will take into
account your comments. I've snipped the purely editorial ones 
from my comments below.

> 4.   Guideline 6
>      I'm baffled by the title:
>      "Supplement markup to aid interpretation of text"
>      In what sense do any of the recommendations under this guideline
>      supplement markup?

Perhaps it would be better to say something like "Provide clues
about natural language information". And in the subhead (or
rationale) explain that such markup will help, for example,
speech synthesizers.

> 7.   Checkpoint 11.1
>      This is surely incorrect:
>      "See also guideline 11."

Yes, I believe it should be Guideline 10.

> 11.  Checkpoint 15.9
>      Context:
>      "Facilitate off-line browsing by creating a single downloadable file
>      for documents that exist as a series of separate pages. [Priority 3]
>      For example, in HTML use the LINK element. Or create an archive of the
>      different pages (e.g., with zip, gzip, stuffit, etc.)."
>      I'm baffled by the sentence "For example, in HTML use the LINK element."
>      It would appear that two distinct issues have got collapsed into one.

I agree. There are trwo problems in the example part of 15.9:
  a) The LINK element should be mentioned in a checkpoint about
     navigation tools (that may be synthesized by UAs).
  b) The part about archives is another solution that is not
     related to the checkpoint. This has to be cleared up.

> 17.  References
>      Suggestion:
>      Change all W3C references to point to the "latest version" of each
>      document, eg:
>      "http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424" ->
>      "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"

>      The current references make it less likely that checkpoint 13.1 will be
>      adhered to.

Hmm, I recently changed them to designate specific versions
Perhaps unlike a technical specification, it's best in this case
to point to the latest version. And 13.1 reinforces that.
> 18.  General
>      Suggestion:
>      " &nbsp;<span class="priority1">[Priority&nbsp;1]</span>" ->
>      " <span class="priority1">[Priority&nbsp;1]</span>"
>      Ditto for the other priorities.

Good catch. Our scripts were producing an extra &nbsp; at
the beginning of that markup. The one between "Priority" and "1"
is left intentionally.
>      The current extensive use of "&nbsp;" results in unnnecessary
>      formatting anomalies.

Thank you again Misha,

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 1999 16:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:29 UTC