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@[10.0.1.10]>
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:
>Kynn,
>
>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
>content.

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

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 17:04:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT