Re: CfC: Pull Request 137

+1 to John's edit to the Technique.
 

    On Monday, June 6, 2016 1:20 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
 

 All,
While in principle I agree with this revision, and not wanting to stall progress, I'm not 100% sure removing XHTML outright from this Technique is useful in a broader context. If anything, I'd like to see this expanded to note *all* W3C standardized markup languages, including SVG and MathML. The current Technique states (plus I've added a proposed edit):

The objective of this technique is to use <strike>HTML and XHTML</strike> <ins>W3C standardized mark-up languages</ins> according to their respective specifications. Technology specifications define the meaning and proper handling of features of the technology. Using those features in the manner described by the specification ensures that user agents, including assistive technologies, will be able to present representations of the feature that are accurate to the author's intent and interoperable with each other.


I will suggest that this possible edit enhances the technique, without weakening or detracting from it.
Reading through the minutes of that January call, while there was agreement at the end of the discussion, I also note Wayne's comment as part of that exchange:


wayne: the xhtml is very important because of epubs groups that will be looking to wcag. the extensions have to be compatible with xhtml.


Question: is this then worth re-opening? ePub is moving towards HTML5, but we don't really say anything about SVG (which is a growing technology) and perhaps we should, given that:


a) WCAG is (should be) technology agnostic, and,

b) this applies to both 4.1.1 Parsing "In content implemented using markup languages...", as well as 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value with the Note: "This success criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or script their own user interface components." (which one can do with SVG, for example) 



c) with a bit of a stretch we could also say that this applies to ARIA, where if you DON'T use ARIA "according to their (it's) respective specification(s)" you will again have content that may not be accessible due to a "robustness" failure.

Thoughts?
JF
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

+1 to these changes.
JF
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:

CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Wednesday June 8 at 11:30am Boston time.
GitHub issue 133 (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/133) was discussed on a WG call as well as the proposed changes (in Pull request #137) and were agreed to in a WG call (http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item06).
Pull request:https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/137/files?diff=split
The changes are to update techniques H88 to be more focused on HTML5.
If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
Thanks,AWK
Andrew KirkpatrickGroup Product Manager, AccessibilityAdobe 
akirkpat@adobe.comhttp://twitter.com/awkawkhttp://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion




-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion