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

Re: example format for Guide DOc (for 1.1 L1 SC1)

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:12:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4329C7A7.3020405@trace.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Thanks Christophe,

I've incorporated many of your suggestions (comments inline, marked [BBC]).

-Ben

Christophe Strobbe wrote:

...

> The definition links in the  text of the guideline and success 
> criterion (quoted at the top) point to the definitions in the 
> Guidelines document, not to those in the Guide Doc.
>
[BBC] Fixed. This is something I had on my list for the XSLT, but hadn't 
remembered to include in the example. Good catch.

...

> I wouldn't remove the word "Guideline" from the title (<h1>). The 
> <title> element should also be more descriptive.

[BBC] Agreed. Fixed.

>
> There is something wrong with the markup for the first example: list 
> items b should really be a paragraph of list item a.
> Minor comment: the type attribute on <ol>, <ul> and <li> is 
> deprecated. We could replace <ol type="a"> with the CSS declaration 
> "list-style-type: lower-latin".

[BBC] Fixed the markup problem. I'm not sure about the idea of changing 
the ordered list with CSS. To me, this is a problem when it comes to the 
separation of presentation and content in that, when you remove the CSS, 
some users will get an ordered list with numbers and others will get an 
ordered list with letters. The type attribute on <ol> isn't deprecated 
for XHTML transitional, so this is not a concern in terms of validity. 
If we don't already, I think we should have a CSS technique that 
specifically addresses this.

>
> Content-wise: is "using a valid text alternative" now assumed to be 
> implicit in the other techniques?
>
[BBC] Actually, we had taken the title "using a valid text alternative" 
from a previous draft and replaced it with a general technique titled 
"providing an alternative" - this change was made to avoid confusion 
with validity, but the intent of the general technique would be the same 
and would explain that things like placeholder text, filenames, etc. 
would not be considered text alternatives.

> If I may put on my linguistics hat: when a list is a continuation of a 
> sentence, punctuation and capitalisation should reflect this. For 
> example in the previous version of the template:
>
> Providing long descriptions by...
> - using noembed with embed,
> - using longdesc.
>
> instead of
>
> Providing long descriptions by...
> - using noembed with embed
> - using longdesc
>
> In the new template, this would become:
>
> Providing long descriptions in HTML
> - Using noembed with embed,
> - using longdesc.
>
> or
>
> Providing long descriptions in HTML
> - Using noembed with embed.
> - Using longdesc.
>
[BBC] Good suggestions. The latter suggestion looks best to me, but I 
don't think there is a hard and fast grammatical rule to follow here. Do 
others have preferences?
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 19:12:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT