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

Re: [XAG clarification] "accessible modules" in 1.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:24:25 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
cc: 3WC WAI X-TECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206201716390.28517-100000@tux.w3.org>

I think that merging 2.9 and 1.3 might be a smart way to go.

What we mean is that rather than inventing another way of doing something,
use a piece of an existing XML language. Alternative content isn't the only
issue - the ability to provide navigation points, or containers, is another
example.

For incorporating graphics, SVG would be something that can be used.  (I have
seen other languages incorporate graphics directly in the markup, and they
use a horribly inaccessible method - include the data that makes a jpeg).

I would like to propose that as a technique.

This need not occur only when people have decided to build from existing
modules - it is a good practise anyway (and it can be done whether using an
approach like modularisation or building an entire DTD from scratch).

Cheers

Chaals


On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:


  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > This question is forwarded with permission from Astrid Callista:
  >
  >   What is meant (in checkpoint 1.3 [1]) by "accessible modules"? Are these
  >   modules created by the author of the program?
  >
  > [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML/xag-20020617#cp1_3 - "1.3 Reuse existing
  > accessibility modules to indicate alternative-equivalent associations".
  >
  >
   From acomments I sent last October on XAG [1]:

  > IJ: I think I prefer might be "accessibility modules" to
  > "accessible modules". I think it might be useful to preface
  > the requirement a little with something like:
  >    "When building a format out of smaller modules, reuse
  >     proven accessibility modules."
  >
  > Why would one only be interested in reuse of modules related to
  > alternative equivalents? Are there other functionalities that benefit
  > accessibility (e.g., metadata) that might be reusable?
  >

  I also suggested mergin 2.9 with 1.3 into:

     "Reuse modules, and reuse them appropriately."

  Can one define an "XML Module"?

    _ Ian


  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-tech-comments/2001Sep/0027



-- 
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 Thursday, 20 June 2002 17:24:32 UTC

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