W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Avoid deprecated features query

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:07:21 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030604164310.02088ec0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Pam Galloway <pam.galloway@connectinternetsolutions.com>

At 03:04 PM 2003-06-04, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

>Hello Pam,
>
>This is an interesting question.
>
>Personally, I interpret 11.2 to mean "don't use deprecated features" and 
>if you use deprecated features then you don't conform.

My recollection would be that we said 'avoid' because we did not feel it was
reasonable to expect content completely to satisfy "do not use."  That
"do not use" would be interpreted as MUST NOT use in the RFC 2119 sense, 
whereas
"avoid" indicated a SHOULD NOT in the same terms.

If we go back and trace the discussion on layout tables, I believe this
interpretation should be borne out.  Not so clear we thought it through
in as much depth on deprecated features.

I haven't found conclusive proof, but at least at the April 13 meeting the
proposal to replace 'avoid' with the simpler "do not use" was considered.
The sense that 'avoid' indicates more room for discretion was raised, and
the proposed change failed to achieve a consensus either way.

  Minutes from 13 April Working Group Teleconference
  http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/3714876A.B1FE613@w3.org

Is there some way to trace from here through the change log for the issues list
to see if this issue were ever resolved at some point?

My answer to Pam would be threefold:

<draft
class="clarification personal">

a) yes, the language is meant to leave some room for discretion, for
deprecated features to be used where the option is [too difficult].

b) this is not a free ride; this means that you have to make a good faith
attempt to avoid the use of these features before claiming compliance.
Whether you have indeed made a good faith effort is something that would
require examination of the facts of the pages, and cannot be determined
simply by a clarification of the checkpoint.

c) the Working Group will attempt to clarify or interpret the guidelines
but cannot take on case-by-case reviews including the facts of a particular
site.

</draft>

Al

>It sounds like you have updated some pages but not all.  What if you 
>clarify the scope of your conformance claim?  For example, "Pages created 
>or updated after 1 June 2003 conform at Level AA to WCAG 1.0.  Pages 
>created before 31 May 2003 conform at Level A to WCAG 1.0 because they use 
>deprecated features of HTML 4.01."
>
>I'm interested in reactions from others on the list.
>--wendy
>
>At 06:42 AM 6/4/2003, Pam Galloway wrote:
>
>>All
>>
>>Can you clarify what avoid means in this instance, please.
>>
>>If a web page has includes some deprecated features and is submitted as 
>>4.01 Transistional, which allows for deprecated features, will it be 
>>accessible to Priority Level 2 - Guideline 11.2 - Avoid deprecated 
>>features of W3C technologies?
>>
>>I took it that avoid means try not to use, not don't use. I need an 
>>answer as we are looking at a site with 100's of pages that needs to be 
>>compliant to level 2. Some deprecated features have been dropped and 
>>replaced using CSS. Others would take a while to do as the number of 
>>pages is extensive.
>>
>>cheers
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Pam Galloway
>
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>/--
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 17:08:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:22 GMT