W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: Multiple guidelines views (views)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:38:43 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: cyns@opendesign.com, kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com, chas@munat.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
We haven't ditched the database idea.  The idea was to get the content 
correct and then make views of it.  I attempted this to some extent by 
creating a few views of it using CSS and hiding/showing various pieces of 
the document. [1] [2] [3]

We can use XSLT to make more personalized views on the fly.

Currently, the guidelines/checkpoints are in an XHTML source with lots of 
classes and divs.  The draft that gets published is generated using 
XSLT.  We can break it into chapters as Paul suggested, with the current 
source and a tweak to the XSLT.  I'm not sure how I feel about the 
modularization idea yet, although it is the growing trend w/in the W3C. 
Regardless, I'd hope we would use XML/XSLT to generate it.

The techniques DTD/Schema is under development and Matt is moving the 
HTML/XHTML techniques into it.  To link guidelines/checkpoints  with 
techniques we'll need XSLT to pull from the various sources.

1.0 had a variety of databases, but no one saw them. It was all backend 
stuff that got pulled together with Perl.  This time we're anticipating 
moving it to the front end and replacing most of the Perl with XSLT.

It's just a matter of finding people to help write these things and make it 
happen.  Please help.

We do need one normative view of the document, but I believe we can create 
a "tool" to help people get at the info they need.


[1] Only show guideline and checkpoint text (even hides the intro) 

[2] Only show guideline, checkpoint, and criteria 

[3] Only show guidelines, checkpoint, and benefits 

At 05:53 PM 8/20/01 , cyns@opendesign.com wrote:
>We had a similar discussion at the F2F meeting at CSUN in March 2000.  I
>think at the time we were calling it views into a database (or at least I
>was), and we were talking about being able to generate technology-based sets
>of checkpoints.
>We kept the technology-specifics (they turned into multiple techniques
>documents), but ditched the database idea.  If I remember correctly, this
>was because our charter is to build a Normative Document, and a Normative
>Document has to be static.  I don't entirely understand why. As far as I can
>tell, it's because Normative Documents are derived from the same base class
>as Laws and Regulations, and are constrained by some paper-based idioms.
>Greg, Wendy, or Jason, can you help us understand the W3C policy issues
>If our goal is to provide information to help Web Developers build
>accessible sites, I still believe the database approach is the best one.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:15 PM
>To: Charles F. Munat; WAI Guidelines WG
>Subject: Re: Multiple guidelines views (views)
>At 2:01 PM -0700 2001/8/20, Charles F. Munat wrote:
> >I don't know if I've explained this very well. Can anyone elucidate this
> >idea better?
> >Chas. Munat
>Check the archives; this has been implicit -- but perhaps not well-stated
>-- in my understanding of the whole "do the document in XML and then
>generate out whatever types of other documents we need" concept.
>It might just be that the understanding of -restructuring- the doc was
>just within my head and not articulated -- mainly because I view XSLT as
>a restructuring tool not a selection tool.  So what you describe sounds
>perfectly natural and appropriate to me, but maybe isn't what other people
>were thinking of.
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
>Technical Developer Liaison
>Reef North America
>Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
>Tel +1 949-567-7006

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 21:25:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC