W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2002

Re: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue? [was: Draft TAG Finding:...]

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:31:02 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020815161735.021728c0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>, <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>

At 03:14 PM 2002-08-15, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

>[+BCC to WAI PF]
>
> > I'll leave it to the editor(s) to address your suggestion about
> > the text of the finding, but it seems to me that just omitting
> > XSL-FO from that phrase won't address the issue you raise
> > about whether it's appropriate to use XSL-FO to store
> > information.
> >
> > It looks like a new issue.
>
>A new issue for TAG perhaps, but the WAI PF WG have been tackling such
>issues for a number of months now as part of the work on the XML
>Accessibility Guidelines. I refer you to checkpoint 2.1 of the current
>working draft:-
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlgl-20010829#cp2_1
>- 2.1 Ensure all semantics are captured in markup in a repurposeable form.
>XML Accessibility Guidelines
>W3C Working Draft 29 August 2001
>
>I'm not sure how much of this is an architecural issue rather than
>accessibility; I suppose that this is for the chairs of the relevant groups
>to decide.

[I think Dan meant "a different issue" when he said "a new issue."
New to the thread, not to the W3C.]

Just a bit more history/precedent, as there is stronger precedent than just 
the XAG:

The principle as proposed to the Device Independence Working Group
is quite broad, that is to say it is intended to apply to all Web
Content.  As Sean said, I leave it up to the TAG to decide what
broad issues are 'architecture.'

<quote
cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Nov/0069.html">

- Options of reduced flexibility may be offered _only if_ there are
alternatives, the alternatives include at least one flexible [e.g. WCAG
compliant] option, and the user has [defined URIs for] access to the full
range of options.  [Reference:  XSL FO discussions.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice7.html#common-accessibility-properties>].

</quote>

The cited XSL specification language on this point is W3C Recommendation.
It was included in that specification in consideration of the likely access
failures resulting from violating this advice.

Note that what we agreed with the XSL group does not forbid storing or 
serving XSL-FO.  It is more at the level of a "source in escrow" 
requirement.  You can store and serve a targeted final form so long as you 
also sustain and make available the capability to generate something else 
when needed.

Al

--
>Kindest Regards,
>Sean B. Palmer
>@prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> .
>:Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 16:31:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT