W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Accessibility of protocols

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:05:29 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Thanks Jason. Carlos Velasco and William Loughborough  (on PF WG) 
agree.  I've closed the issue as it relates to success criteria and expect 
if it comes up it will be in a server-side techniques document.

At 07:31 PM 10/22/02, Jason White wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > The WCAG WG has an open issue about protocols [1].  In your opinion, do you
> > think WCAG 2.0 needs to say anything about transport protocols (e.g., http,
> > soap)?
>Where they are potentially relevant, yes. Remember that the
>technology-specifics reside outside the guidelines themselves, so that any
>mention in the guidelines would only be brief and would not refer to any
>specific protocols.
>Consider a scenario in which WCAG 2.0 becomes a Recommendation and, at
>some point thereafter, it becomes desirable to write techniques for using
>a protocol (e.g., a content negotiation protocol); if protocols aren't
>mentioned in the relevant context in WCAG then arguably there is no
>normative requirement on which to rest the techniques; therefore the
>techniques don't match the guidelines and one is faced with the
>undesirable prospect of having to amend a normative document, and moreover
>in ways that were entirely foreseeable.
>My conclusion: leave the possibility open in suitable contexts but don't
>spend much time on it. I would be particularly interested in content
>negotiation, which can operate at the protocol level.

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 16:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC