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

Re: semantics in style

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:17:19 -0400
Message-Id: <200108271856.OAA7430355@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, love26@gorge.net
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 02:27 PM 2001-08-27 , Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>At the 23 August 2001 telecon [1] we discussed issue #4 [2] which you 
>raised a while ago.  The issue is as follows:
>4. Semantics in style
>8 August 2000 - William Loughborough. If I use style to convey semantics, 
>how do I pass along the semantics to someone who does not use style sheets? 
>The class name is not something that gets shown to the user. There must be 
>some way to convey intended semantics presented via presentation mode.
>The working group thinks this is closed as it is covered by checkpoint 1.3 
>(use structure), 1.5 (separate content and structure) and CSS 
>techniques.  Do you agree that this issue is closed?  Could you help 
>reframe the question so that we can attempt to address it?

AG::  Well, yes and no.

You can't close this issue based on "content guidelines" alone; that is to say
guidelines for what the publisher puts in the HTML pages that travel through
HTTP alone.

Closing this issue also involves techniques for the User Agent -- that in
the 'class' tokens are part of the conditional content that should be
inspectable on request pursuant to Checkpoint 2.3, independent of styling.

See, for example where in [long and stammered URL warning]


it says

               o (2b) provide access to C by query (e.g., allow the user
                 to query an element for its attributes). [snip]

The full strategy also involves techniques for how you use schemas; there is
language in the imminent XML Guidelines pointing out that the schema should
cover the intended meaning of the class codes and should provide brief
definitions usable in user interfaces for authoring and browsing.

What we haven't worked out is the best techniques for providing comparable
normalization of categories and documentation of codes (such as class tokens
used in legacy formats such as XHTML 1.1).  And we [as in PF] need to work
y'all [as in GL] on that for sure.

However, aside from specifically noting UAAG 2.3 this should all be agenda for
future work and not immediate massaging of the WCAG 2.0 drafts.  


>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>seattle, wa usa
Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 14:56:53 UTC

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