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

RE: GL 1.3 vs GL 2.4

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 16:25:17 +0100
To: <lguarino@adobe.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200511011019437.SM00952@Inbox>

A question for all.
If page code is not valid and/or well formed, how can we guarantee at level 1 that "structure be programmatically determined"?

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Loretta Guarino Reid"<lguarino@adobe.com>
    Inviato: 01/11/05 16.14.17
    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: GL 1.3 vs GL 2.4
    The relationship between GL 1.3 and 2.4 emerged at the Face 2 Face meeting
    again, as well as questions about what is sufficient to meet the guidelines.
    The subgroup didn't come to a consensus, but seems to think that we have two
    Option 1)
      * GL 1.3 L1 SC1 is interpreted to mean that any structure that can be
    expressed in a technology is expressed in a way that is programmatically
      * GL 1.3 L2 SC (optional, new): requires that structure is used to express
    certain relationships in the content, e.g. tables
     * GL 2.4 only addresses explicit navigation elements (i.e. links) and the
    use of structure for navigation is assumed to be addressed by GL 1.3 L1
    Option 2)
      * GL 1.3, L1, SC 1 requires that structure be programmatically determined
    when information is lost in the linearization of the content.
      * GL 1.3, L2 adds a success criterion that requires all structure that can
    be expressed in the content
      * GL 2.4, L1 only addresses explicit navigation elements
    In both cases, we would remove reference to navigating by structure from GL
    2.4. GL 2.4 appears to address recognizing links programmatically.
    Case 1 seems to be closer to what most other Success Criteria were assuming
    from GL 1.3.
    Case 2 is closer to the requirements of WCAG1, which only requires table
    mark-up at level 1 and requires other structural markup at level 2.
    Additional discussion can be found at
    Does the working group want to have a survey on which of these options to
    adopt? Or include a discussion of the options in our working draft and
    solicit public feedback?

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:22:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:56 UTC