W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Updated: DRAFT - Checkpoints for HTML, XML, SMIL, CSS, SVG, and XHTML

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 07:44:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0006070739210.27992-100000@tux.w3.org>
I would very much like to see the content of this draft added to the proposed
revision version of the guidelines - the trimmed down one that we did a
couple of months ago.

I think that would make a reasonable basis for a preliminary working draft as
well, not least because it should still (we ned to test this...) provide
"backwards compatibility" with WCAG 1.0 (I have some other thoughts on that
topic, but I will hunt out the right thread for them).


Charles McCN

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Jason White wrote:

  This draft is starting to take shape well.
  1. Combine HTML and CSS as they are so often used together (this was
  discussed at last week's meeting).
  2. Should frames count as auditory/visual content for which an alternative
  is needed? The requirement is that frame layout be explained to facilitate
  navigation of the content. This probably shouldn't be subsumed under
  checkpoint 1.1.
  3. With respect to the XHTML requirements, how many of these are simply
  needed to ensure validity, and how many are truly access-related? Consider
  combining HTML and XHTML, noting their differences where relevant, instead
  of creating two lists of checkpoints.
  The resultant checklists would, in outline, be as follows:
  1. The HTML/XHTML/CSS checklist, characterizing the requirements common to
  these formats when used with CSS as tye style language.
  2. Extensibility checklist: reuse of access-related components from XHTML
  and other languages, discussion of modularization and the design of new
  markup languages.
  3. SMIL checklist.
  4. SVG checklist.
  5. User interface checklist: either one checklist, treating both DOM and
  HTML forms; or two checklists, one covering DOM (scripts etc.) and the
  other discussing forms.
  6. XSL could be included in 1, 2, and 4, possibly in 3 as well. Authors
  are able to choose between CSS and XSL, though the latter is likely to be
  used in connection with the XML-based formats rather than with HTML.
  Other checklists may be needed, but the foregoing, perhaps, provides a
  suitable starting point.

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2000 07:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:32 UTC