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

RE: Report for ISOC IL FTF

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:14:46 +0200
To: <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f501c3c85b$47f53fe0$ad00000a@patirsrv.patir.com>

My comments inline in 
<lisa></lisa>

All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:07 AM
To: lisa seeman
Cc: 'WAI-GL'
Subject: Re: Report for ISOC IL FTF


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.

<lisa>you could, but it will not be easy with database driven content
management systems. And not everyone has good server access.  Israel is
a small market, Israel accessibility market is very small, so content
tools will be unlikely to accommodate this - it would probably need
proxing - and the question is - is it necessary in the first
place?</lisa>

 > 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.


<lisa>yup that wording came up in the meeting - peaple were happy with
that</lisa>

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 02:22:42 GMT

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