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

Re: Rough notes on WCAG-related topics from AUWG F2F 26/27 September

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:35:23 +0200
Message-ID: <002a01c397f9$b72ee2e0$0400a8c0@iwars>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:14 PM
Subject: Rough notes on WCAG-related topics from AUWG F2F 26/27
September



===
>WCAG 2.0 checkpoint 4.1
>
>2.  There is an exception for backwards compatibility.  An example that
>we've discussed in the Techniques Task Force is using the embed element
>because the object element is not well supported. Thus, it should be
>acceptable to stray from the HTML 4.01 specification by using the embed
>element.  However, it is also possible to publish a modified HTML 4.01
dtd
>that allows embed.  For example,. The exception for backwards
>compatibility seems applicable primarily (only?) to HTML 4.01.

In the checkpoint 4.1 at the d) we said: "deprecated features are
avoided".
The use of object element, as I've show in a message send to the list
[1], can cause some problems and this is due to the wrong application of
the browsers.
In XHTML 2.0 all (also images) will refer to the object element so what
we need to do is not to re-accept deprecated elements like "embed" but
involve the representatives of the browsers producers to optimize the
"object" element support.

>Possibilities:
>1. remove the exception for backwards compatibility and push validity
to
>dtd/schemata whether it be something published by the W3C or something
>published by someone else.  Issue: what about proprietary elements?
What
>about formats that do not have accessibility features?

Also in WCAG 1.0 there is a checkpoint 3.2 [2] where there is a phrase
that said:
"It is preferable to validate to W3C grammars." As you know, preferible
don't means "must" so if there are some DTD that are not the official of
W3C [3] but are proprietary DTD, it seems that these are valid for cover
this checkpoint. But if a proprietary DTD refer to the "embed" or
"applet" object, how we can conform this with the checkpoint 11.2 for
WCAG 1.0 (Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies) ?

These my two cents.

Roberto Scano
---
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0019.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#doctype
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 13:35:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT