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

Re: WCAG 1.0 - Errata Update Needed...

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:17:32 -0800
Cc: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Alistair Garrison'" <alistair.garrison@accessinmind.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EEF2C7D8-2172-11D8-A4B3-000393AF2932@idyllmtn.com>


On Thursday, November 27, 2003, at 09:57 PM, Judy Brewer wrote:
> You seem to be asking a different question than Alistair, about an 
> amendment to WCAG 1.0 itself, using the documented errata, and 
> possibly also using some draft WCAG 2.0 provisions. Since the W3C 
> Process for incorporating errata has recently been changed, it should 
> probably be looked at anew with regard to some of the documented 
> errata in WCAG 1.0.

I would suggest "WCAG 1.0, Second Edition" as per a number of updated
W3C specs (XHTML, XML, etc) that use such terminology.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

"This document is the second edition of the XHTML 1.0 specification
incorporating the errata changes as of 1 August 2002. Changes
between this version and the previous Recommendation are illustrated
in a diff-marked version."

"This second edition is not a new version of XHTML 1.0 (first published
26 January 2000). The changes in this document reflect corrections
applied as a result of comments submitted by the community and as a
result of ongoing work within the HTML Working Group. There are no
substantive changes in this document - only the integration of
various errata."

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006

"This second edition is not a new version of XML (first published 10
February 1998); it merely incorporates the changes dictated by the
first-edition errata (available at 
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-19980210-errata)
as a convenience to readers. The errata list for this second edition
is available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata."

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PER-xml-20031030/

"This document is a Proposed Edited Recommendation of the W3C. This
third edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to readers,
it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated errata
(available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata) to the Second
Edition of XML 1.0, dated 6 october 2000. In addition, markup has been
introduced on a significant portion of the prescriptions of the
specification, clarifying when prescriptive keywords such as MUST,
SHOULD and MAY are used in the formal sense defined in [IETF RFC 2119"

As Joe Clark pointed out, this is what I proposed in May:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0218.html

> "Erratum" seems a bad choice for an update which was planned from the
> start -- the phrasing "Until user agents handle empty controls
> correctly ..."
> indicates that this is not a mistake per se, but a simple update.
>
> Accordingly, I think that this -- and any other "until user agent"
> clauses
> which are being phased out -- should be issued not as errata but as
> updates, perhaps as "WCAG 1.0 (Second Edition)" just as XHTML 1.0
> was released in 2000 and a Section Edition in 2002. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ This, I think, would make more sense to 
> Web developers who have been
> working with WCAG 1.0 for years and would be startled to learn that
> there was an _error_ in the original.  Truth is, there wasn't -- so 
> this
> should be presented as a natural update, not a bugfix.  The
> circumstances
> of the checkpoint changed, but the checkpoint's validity (given broken
> assistive technology/UIs) did not.
>
> Also, as a bonus, this could easily lead to more attention to WCAG
> 1.0 (and ultimately to WCAG 2.0) through the issuance of the Second
> Edition than a mere erratum issue would provide.  The actual work
> would be minimal -- simply folding in the additional updates and
> errata which have already been identified by the working group.

This is the approach which I feel would have the greatest benefits to
the working group, the Web developers, and the general public.

WCAG 1.0 is with us now, and is being used -- likely in an "unpatched"
mode by developers, most of whom NEVER look at the errata -- and will
continue to be used as WCAG 2.0 work proceeds.  Once WCAG 2.0 is
adopted, there is no guarantee that WCAG 1.0 will fall by the wayside;
there is a lot invested in WCAG 1.0, from official policies to software
tools, which will make the idea of an easy switch very hard to do for
some audiences.

Those audiences will benefit greatly from a WCAG 1.0 Second Edition,
especially if work on WCAG 2.0 takes longer than expected.

--Kynn

> --
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                     http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain                http://idyllmtn.com
Author, CSS in 24 Hours                       http://cssin24hours.com
Shock & Awe Blog                                http://shock-awe.info
Inland Anti-Empire Blog                   http://inlandantiempire.org
Received on Friday, 28 November 2003 02:21:20 GMT

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