W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > May 2005

Re: [draft] answers to multiple WAI CG comments re: SpecGL

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:16:17 -0400
Message-Id: <B68ED5F1-F840-4BC6-BE1C-43DA85F377D4@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>

I have a problem with this answer for now and with Dom's comments.

Could you redraft it Tim?


Le 05-04-22 à 09:16, Tim Boland a écrit :

>
> Per my assignment,  following are draft QAWG responses to WAI CG  
> re: issues 1082, 1083, 1085, 1087, 1089, 1090, 1091.   Note that  
> since 1091 is marked as a duplicate of 1049, I wasn't sure how to  
> handle this one..
>
> Best wishes
> Tim Boland NIST
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1082 (extensibility in the case  
> of WCAG2.0)
>
>
>
> Original Comment (Issue 1082):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> Additional Comment #1:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1082#c1
>
>
> The QA Working Group agrees? with the WAI CG (or indicates that the  
> WAI CG's interpretation
> as stated in Original Comment for Issue 1082 is correct?)
> that WCAG2.0 guidelines/success criteria can be extended, because  
> the Guidelines
> are deliberately generic; thus they can be applied and adapted  
> (extended) by
> different policy makers, and extensibility is appropriate.   The QA  
> Working Group
>  suggests that WCAG2.0 documentation indicate that it is allowable  
> to add additional
>  guidelines/criteria to those already in WCAG2.0 for the previously- 
> stated purpose,
>  but that such additions should be in the style of existing WCAG2.0  
> success
> criteria/guidelines if possible.  Furthermore, the QA Working Group  
> suggests that
>  the mechanism for such extensibility should be defined formally in  
> the
> WCAG2.0 documentation.  The QA Working Group believes that such  
> extensibility
>  considerations as mentioned previously are consistent with "2.4.3  
> Extensibility and
> Extensions in the revised SpecGL draft:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#extensions
>
>
> The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks  
> the WAI CG for any input
> into this proposed resolution.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1083 (Deprecation in case of  
> WCAG1.0/WCAG2.0)
>
>
>
>
> Original Comment (Issue 1083):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> Additional Comment #1:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1083#c1
>
>
> The QA Working Group acknowledges that the WCAG1.0 and WCAG2.0  
> documents are very different
> in style, and that mapping between WCAG1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG2.0  
> in such a way that would
> allow such Checkpoints to be marked as decprecated in WCAG2.0 would  
> be indirect and difficult.
> However, the QA Working Group believes that the creation of such a  
> mapping is important,
> because specification users need to know the evolution of  
> particular features from WCAG1.0 to
> WCAG2.0.  The QA Working Group suggests that an appendix be created  
> in WCAG2.0 with the mapping
> desired by the QA Working Group (indicated previously), showing and
> explaining the evolution of particular features from WCAG1.0 to  
> WCAG2.0; in such an appendix,
> the QA Working Group suggests to use whatever format is most  
> appropriate in meeting the objectives
> of the appendix.   The QA Working Group believes that such an  
> approach mentioned previously would
> be consistent with "2.4.4 Deprecation" in the revised SpecGL draft:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#deprecation
>
>
> The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks  
> the WAI CG for any input
> into this proposed resolution.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1085 (detailed table of contents)
>
>
>
> Original Comment (Issue 1085):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> Additional Comment #1:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c1
>
> Additional Comment #2:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c2
>
>
> The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI CG that the table of  
> contents should go into deeper levels
> to to be able to find requirements and good practices more easily  
> and quickly.  Note that in
> the revised SpecGL draft:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/
>
> the List of Requirements and List of Good Practices are linked  
> directly
>  after the Table of Contents, and are also numbered consecutively  
> for easier reference.
>
> The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks  
> the WAI CG for any input
> into this proposed resolution.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1087 (address Accessibility in  
> Requirements)
>
>
>
> Original Comment (Issue 1087):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> Additional Comment #1:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c1
>
> Additional Comment #2:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c2
>
> The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG that  
> SpecGL should mention the
> need to consider accessibility while writing a specification.   The  
> QA Working Group
> further desires that SpecGL should mention the need to additionally  
> consider
> internationalization and device independence while writing a  
> specification.  Accordingly,
> a new Section 3.3 ("Accessibility, Internationalization, and Device  
> Independence Considerations")
> has been created in the revised SpecGL draft:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#address-other-topics
>
> Note that there is a reference to the XML Accessibility Guidelines  
> within Section 3.3.
>
> The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks  
> the WAI CG for any input
> into this proposed resolution.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1089 (Need Clarifications for  
> 2.2 Requirement A)
>
>
>
> Original Comment (Issue 1089):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> Additional Comment #1:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c1
>
> Additional Comment #2:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c2
>
>
> The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG to  
> change the Requirement
> "Identify who or what will implement the specification" to  
> "Identify who and/or what
> will implement the specification".   Accordingly, Requirement 03  
> (old 2.2A) in the
>  revised SpecGL Draft:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#implement-principle
>
> has been changed as indicated? (NOTE: THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE YET -  
> SENT SEPARATE MESSAGE ON
> THIS!)
>
>
> The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks  
> the WAI CG for any input
> into this proposed resolution.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1090 (Managing Variability in  
> WCAG2.0)
>
>
>
> Original Comment (Issue 1090):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> Additional Comment #1:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1090#c1
>
>
> The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI WG that the approach taken by
> the WAI CG in managing variability through conformance to three  
> levels of
> success criteria (as indicated in Original Comment) is correct in
> interpretation.  The QA Working Group believes that this approach is
> consistent with "2.4 Managing Variability" of revised SpecGL draft:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#variability
>
> The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks  
> the WAI CG for any input
> into this proposed resolution.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1091 (Formal Language vs. Prose:  
> Ambiguity)
>
>
>
> Original Comment (Issue 1091):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> Additional Comment #1:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1091#c1
>
> (NOTE: This bug is marked as a duplicate of bug 1049.  Should I  
> just reference the response to
> bug 1049, or point to Good Practice 11 in revised SpecGL:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#formal-language-gp
>
> Not sure which approach is best?)
>
>

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:16:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:35 UTC