W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2001

Responses to HTML WG issues raised during third last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:55:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3B4471BF.A265833F@w3.org>
To: steven.pemberton@cwi.nl
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Steven,

The User Agent Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) has almost
finished resolving the issues raised during the third last call
review of the 9 April 2001 UAAG 1.0 [1]. 

This is the UAWG's formal response to the issues you raised on 
behalf of the HTML WG, which have been logged in the Working Group's 
issues list [4].  The UAWG's resolutions and other editorial suggestions
have been incorporated into the 22 June 2001 draft of the UAAG 1.0 [5].

Please indicate before 19 July whether you are satisfied with the
UAWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
If you do not think you can respond before 19 July, please let me
know.  The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
with the resolutions or not.

Below you will find:

 1) More information follows about the process we are following.
 2) A summary of the UAWG's responses to each of your issues.

Note: Where checkpoint numbers have changed, I indicate the mapping to
the 22 June 2001 draft.

Thank you,

 _ Ian

-----------------------------------------------
1) Process requirement to address last call issues
-----------------------------------------------

Per section 5.2.3 [2] of the 8 February 2001 Process Document, in
order for the UAAG 1.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
Document [3] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal
response:

  "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
  addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
  of having sent a response to the party who raised the
  issue. This response should include the Working Group's
  resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
  reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
  initial objection."

If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
Working Group may prepare its substantive response.

If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
with the relevant deliverables. There are currently two
objections that the UAWG will carry forward with the document in
a request to advance to Candidate Recommendation. Each concerns
the priority of checkpoint 12.1, one that the priority should be
lowered, the other that the priority should be raised. There are
additional supporters of each position.

  Phill Jenkins:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0528
    
  Gregory Rosmaita:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0553

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#RecsCR
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/groups.html#WGVotes
[4] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010622/

-----------------------------------------------
2) Issues you raised and responses
-----------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 512: Checkpoint 2.9: What if automatic rendering unspecified 
or contradicts specification? 
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#512
------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution:

 - UAAG 1.0 emphasizes that specs should be followed where they
   allow the developer to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 1.0.

 - Checkpoint 2.1 now reads:

  1.Render content according to specification. 

  2.When a rendering requirement of another specification contradicts
  a requirement of the current document, the user agent may disregard
  the rendering requirement of the other specification and still
  satisfy this checkpoint.


This is intended to resolve the conflict between conformance to other
specifications and conformance ot UAAG 1.0.

I would also note that checkpoint 2.9 has been clarified: the user is
agent is not required to render all conditional content at once in a
single viewport. Thus, for the case of HTML frames, for example, as
long as the NOFRAMES content is available (automatically) in some
viewport in some configuration, that would satisfy 2.9 for that HTML
feature.

--------------------
Your original comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0180


Please refer to follow-up on other issues you raised:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0184
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0193
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0194

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:57:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:57 GMT