Followup re W3C & BCI

Dear Russell:

I'm following up with you regarding the advancement of the WAI-Adapt
Content Module 1.0 to Candidate Recommendation Status in the W3C
process.[1]

The WAI-Adapt Task Force of APA believes we're ready to advance and
we've initiated the process with the W3C Director, as W3C policy
requires.

There are just a few concerns the Director has expressed which we need
to resolve to move forward. We believe you can help resolve them, which
is why I'm writing you at this time.

1.)	We need to exchange some kind of formal understanding document
that would keep the BCI and W3C attorneys happy. I suspect we have no
real disagreements, it's just an 'i' we need to dot, and a 't' to cross,
as it were.

2.)	The Director suggests we normatively reference the BCI PDF index
of concepts, and we could do so, but we suspect that's not the most
accessible version of that table. We note, for example, that you also
maintain it in Excel. That would be significantly more accessible, and
something we'd prefer to PDF--until such time as our W3C Registry spec
takes over this feature function. But, an even more accessible version
might be CSV. Is that a practical possibility?

3.)	As we move this module to CR, we're hoping to get to work
writing the registry specification. We're hoping we can conclude that
specification in a matter of a few months, but we'd very much need your
help on that. Is it likely you could be available to us as we work on a
registry specification through the remainder of 2022? The ideal
situation would be to have the registry specification finished before we
advance the Content Module beyond CR.

Trusting this note finds you well and looking forward to effecting this
long awaited work with you,

Janina


-- 

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Monday, 1 August 2022 13:32:31 UTC