W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Updated proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC2

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0506011502210.19260@aristotle.multipattern.com>

>> For HTML, this is the case where <strong> or <em> or font size or style 
>> is used to add additional meaning to the content.  The <strong> and 
>> <em> elements are not considered "structural" [...]
>
> Why aren't they considered structural?

Structure and semantics are grey areas by definition. The objection "Why 
aren't they considered structural?" does not blow the whole discussion out 
of the water.

> And if the Web content is not a "document" what happens to the proposal?

Well, isn't it true that the esteemed Working Group hasn't settled on 
terminology? Aren't terms like "document" and "delivery unit" up in the 
air?

> Also, "document semantics", were it to be used, would require a 
> definition. We can't rely on a term's being "accepted in the industry" 
> as an excuse for not defining it, especially if it is to be used for 
> conformance purposes.

My advice is "Relax." Many in the Working Group have worked with 
irrational vigour to discredit the term "semantics," which is indeed 
"accepted in the industry." Of course we can define the terms we use. I 
mean, the UAAG glossary exists, and several terms there, along the lines 
of "semantics," have multiple meanings. I don't see a problem.

> If guideline 1.3 is independent of my baseline assumptions, then surely
> one can argue that, there being a markup language for it, I am obliged to
> represent relevant parts of my content in concept notation, at level 1 -

I rather doubt that. WCAG 1 can already be read to require nothing but 
XHTML 1.1 documents and nobody does that. Authors may choose their own 
technologies, though some proposed guidelines place limits on those 
choices. And this option would fit in well:

> 2. As we are already proposing to do, we should provide advice to
> developers in the choice of an appropriate baseline. This includes the
> principle that, other considerations being equal, semantically rich
> formats should be preferred.

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --This.
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 15:08:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC