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

[proposal] additional success criterion for WCAG2 CP 1.5

From: gregory j. rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:02:14 -0400
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CEEMJDFDIKKPEJJLKBKJIELCCAAA.oedipus@hicom.net>
aloha, y'all!

this proposed success criterion for WCAG2 checkpoint 1.5 ("Separate content
and structure from presentation") is intended to either replace or
supplement the final success criterion for
checkpoint 1.5 and to address "final form" document instances/objects...

currently, the final "Success Criterion" for 1.5 reads:

<quote>
To the extent that the technology allows (see checkpoint solutions) the
markup or data model representing the structure of the content, must be
logically separated from the presentation, either in separate data
structures or in a style sheet.
</quote>

note 2: optional qualifiers are enclosed in brackets -- the key concept is
that an author can define presentation as long as the author utilizes markup
that makes it possible for automated extraction of semantics and automated
repurposing

<PROPOSED who="GJR">
* Ensure all semantics are captured in markup in a repurposeable
  form. The markup or data model representing the structure of the
  content, must be logically separated from the presentation, either
  in separate data structures (such as Schema) or in a style sheet.
  Documents which use languages designed solely for presentation or
  a document instance tailored for a specific purpose, such as
  printing, which uses a final form tagset or absolute style rules
  must adhere to the following caveats:
	+ Associate final form objects with the higher level semantics
          of the source, whenever applicable, so that the semantics
          can be extracted from the final form object.
	+ Final form (immutable) document instances must not be
	  promoted as being a generally suitable method of storing
          content that can be used across a variety of devices.
	+ The server should confirm that the client wants this
          particular form before serving it.
        + If purpose of using final form tagsets and/or absolute
          presentation rules are intended to provide document
          instances for a specific purpose, such as printing,
          provide the same content in an accessible format.
</PROPOSED>

note 3: upon my umpteenth re-read of this, i'm not sure whether the
caveats should be listed at this level, or be addressed in the
checkpoint solutions layer -- and if there are caveats that kick in
when people use presentational languages and final form tagsets,
shouldn't we have a "final form/presentational" techniques document
(not its actual name), which would subsume the PDF Techniques
document, i suppose, or be the "parent" module to the PDF Tech's
"child"?

note 4: the first sub-list-item contains a "should" which probably
should be a "must"

note 5: i think that it may appropriate to include a reference to
GL4 under this success criterion

note 6: is it necessary to define "final form"?

gregory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPERSE, v.t.  Maliciously to ascribe to another vicious actions which
one has not had the temptation and opportunity to commit.
	                   -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
              Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 17:01:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:12 GMT