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

Re: Deconstructing WCAG: FWAP 0.1 Straw Man

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:58:35 -0800
Message-Id: <a05100300b81f300b48a2@[]>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 11:02 AM -0800 11/19/01, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>Aside from having some problems with the specific PDF modules you
>included, there is a lot I like about this approach.

I figured that would be the case -- I threw those in to say "hey, we
could do modules about PDF" but I don't have the expertise to say what
those modules would be, and on that I defer happily to you.

>However, I'm a bit confused about the relationship between general
>modules and technology specific modules. For instance, you included
>both a module on abbreviations and on HTML abbreviations, with a
>dependency noted.  Is that the way to indicate a module which is a
>technology-specific implementation of a more general requirement?
>This seems to be a slightly different relationship than, say, the
>Strict HTML's dependency on Valid HTML.

Yes, I'm not sure about how to do this, which is why I gave various
example of "how it could be done" with the intent to illustrate
possibilities.  I'm not sure I like how it came out exactly; I think
some work on the "dependencies" is necessary, as well as specifically
on the issue of technology-specific modules.  That is why this is a
rough draft. ;)

On the issue of abbreviations, as I see it, there is a non-tech
dependent way to do the checkpoint -- indicate abbreviations as
we do in plaintext -- and a tech-dependent which is "use the ABBR
tag."  The two modules are meant to reflect this but maybe it is
not clear.

>This also seems to scatter technology-specific requirements, rather
>than gathering them together in one place so someone using that
>technology can be sure to catch all the requirements, and someone
>who isn't using a specific technology can ignore the related
>requirements. But this may just be a problem of presentation, not of

It probably is. :)

However, ideally what you'd have is something using this approach
to CREATE the actual policy which humans are meant to use, and that
should be arrangable in any way desired.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 17:04:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:22 UTC