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

Re: Report for ISOC IL FTF

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:07:05 +1100
Message-ID: <16358.38937.361248.725923@jdc.local>
To: "lisa seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Cc: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

lisa seeman writes:
 > However as there is no overlap in the encoding character set, it works
 > fine without the Lang tag.

In this case it would be just as easy to write a script that
identifies the start and the end of every string of non-Hebrew text
and inserts a SPAN element where no other element encloses the string, or adds an
XML:LANG attribute or whatever to the containing element, where there
is one.

 > It was suggested that we change the wording of 3.1 success criteria 1
 > From
 > passages or fragments of text occurring within the content that are
 > written in a language other than the primary natural language of the
 > content as a whole, are identified, including specification of the
 > language of the passage or fragment. [X] 
 > 
 > To
 > 
 > passages or fragments of text occurring within the content that are
 > written in a language other than the primary natural language of the
 > content as a whole, are identifiable, either through the character
 > encoding used or through direct including specification of the language
 > of the passage or fragment. [X] 

Or you could write: "... are unambiguously identifiable", and state in
a definition somewhere that this means there must exist a
deterministic algorithm for making the identification. We have similar
requirements elsewhere in the guidelines, e.g., making structure
explicit, where the real requirement is that the structure can be
unambiguously and deterministically recognized, and the use of markup
is the most important, but not necessarily the only, means of meeting
the requirement.

I suggest we try to handle all these cases consistently, with
appropriate wording.

To give proper credit, I believe Gregg is responsible for making, or
at least reinforcing, this point at the March 2003 face to face
meeting and elsewhere. Note also that of course the means of making
structure, language identification, etc., unambiguous must be
supported by some kind of assistive technology, server-side or
proxy-based transformation tool, user agent, etc., but this is an
issue of interoperability which we treat elsewhere in the guidelines,
under guideline 5 to be exact.
Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 02:07:23 GMT

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