W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > June 2002

RE: [XAG Change request] Applicability of XAG

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 06:19:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206180615130.20796-100000@tux.w3.org>

I am arguing deliberately that we should lose the statement "that group are
not a target". I believe that all XML languages should conform to XAG,
including processing-oriented languages such as RDF and XSLT, generally
useful languages such as SVG or XHTML, and that it should address very
device-oriented languages such as XSL-FO or SSML.

I think this is contrary to what you are suggesting?

Actually I think that it is possible to make meaningful tests against XAG for
things like XSLT and RDF, as well as SVG and MathML. The hard parts are
dealing with representing them to end users, or authors, and working out how
to deal with very presentation-specific languages. I have a proposal
forthcoming....

Cheers

Chaals

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:




  > CMN-old
  >   > I would like to propose that we remove the section XML
  >   > Grammars, and The
  >   > Scope Of XAG.
  > DP
  >   With the implication that applicability replace scope?
  > CMN
  > Yes
  > CMN-old
  >   > Applicability.
  >   >
  >   > In principle, every checkpoint in these guidelines should be
  >   > met by all XML
  >   > applications. In some cases, particular checkpoints will be
  >   > "Not Applicable".
  >   > For example, XSLT [ref] specifies transformations, and
  >   > doesn't normally ahve
  >   > a visual representation.
  > DP
  >   Which implies that if an instance or class of document doesn't have
  >   a visual representation XAG is inapplicable?
  > CMN
  > No - there are checkpoints that don't apply and checkpoints
  > that do - whether
  > something is oriented towards representation for a user or not isn't a
  > criteria for whether it should meet XAG as a whole, only for
  > what it does
  > with regard to individual checkpoints.


  I think that's what we have lost. We expressed it in terms that
  (probably unclearly) said 'this group are a target', 'that group
  aren't a target'.  I think with your modification, we have lost
  some of that. I'm not sure I like losing that part of XAG.

  Regards DaveP

  -

  NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
  confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
  intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use,
  disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If
  you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
  immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your
  system.

  RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any
  attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it
  cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are
  transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

  Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
  and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
  represent those of RNIB.

  RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

  Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk

  14th June 2002 is RNIB Look Loud Day - visit http://www.lookloud.org.uk to
  find out all about it.


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 06:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:27 UTC