- From: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:09:54 +1000
- To: kynn@idyllmtn.com
- Cc: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Adding another voice to the idea of a WCAG 1.0 errata (or maybe a 1.1?).
WCAG 1.0 is the standard in Australia too, and while some people are asking
about WCAG 2.0, they don't seem to be champing at the bit to pick it up.
We actually worked with a client to produce an XHTML/CSS specific version
of WCAG 1.0 recently and would certainly like to be involved in the
discussion if this idea "gets legs".
I also like Kynn's idea for addressing the "Until user agent ..."
checkpoints. This is an area we get asked about all the time (and give our
considered opinion on), so it would be good to get international agreement
here.
Andrew
_________________________________
Dr Andrew Arch
Manager Online Accessibility Consulting, National Information and Library
Service
Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210; Mobile 0438 755 565
http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/webaccessibility |
http://www.it-test.com.au/ | http://www.dc-anz.org/
Member, Education & Outreach Working Group,
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/
Kynn Bartlett
<kynn@idyllmtn.co To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
m> cc: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent by: Subject: Re: Errata and future versions
w3c-wai-ig-reques
t@w3.org
28/06/2003 10:37
AM
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 02:48 PM, Joe Clark wrote:
> OK, for example, these two messages--
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2003AprJun/1132..html>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2003AprJun/1135..html>
> -- discuss the errors in WCAG 1.0, and Phill mentioned the idea of
> errata for WCAG 1.0, which someone else had brought up a while ago.
> Kynn, I think.
>
> So: What are we gonna do here?
>
> 1. Divert mindshare and time to produce a WCAG 1.0 errata document,
> [...]
> 2. Keep working on WCAG 2.0 such that 2.0 includes all the fixes for
> the errata of 1.0.
Technically there is already an errata for WCAG 1.0, but I think that
a cohesive effort needs to be made in order to fold those problems,
and other issues, back into the original WCAG 1.0 and issue not an
errata, but a "second edition."
Many major W3C recommendations (such as XHTML 1.0) have published
"second editions" which don't increment the version number -- they
remain 1.0 -- but which clear up problems, confusion, or errors in
the original document.
This is the approach that should be taken with WCAG 1.0, in preparation
for WCAG 2.0 -- I think that by explicitly identifying and solving
the small changes in WCAG 1.0, it will actually help to produce a
cleaner, tighter, and more usable WCAG 2.0 eventually, somewhere
down the road.
As Tina said, we're going to be stuck with WCAG 1.0 for a while,
and it's important that the W3C be seen as properly managing that
document throughout its lifetime. (This also involves giving
definitive, but date-specific, information on the "until user
agent" clauses in WCAG 1.0.)
--Kynn
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Shock & Awe Blog http://shock-awe.info
Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com
Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://inlandantiempire.org
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 00:58:01 UTC