Re: WAI last call comments on CDF, WICD, WICD Full, WICD Mobile, WICD Core

Hi Al Gilman, WAI WG,

Some notes and questions below on these comments. I have not replied to  
all comments and I'm not speaking on behalf of the CDF WG, though I think  
it would be interesting for the CDF WG to get the questions answered.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:18:07 +0100, Al Gilman <>  
> CDF 1.0 review
> Sounds like are requiring DOM 3 through the use of ReferencedDocument -  
> Document.Write() is gone - yes?

document.write() is still in DOM Level 2 HTML, why would it be gone?  
(There is no subsequent version of DOM Level 2 HTML (like DOM Level 3  
HTML) either.)

> What is the default language per embedded document? For example, what  
> happens when you have a lang attribute in a block, specified in XHTML,  
> set to Spanish, and within it you have an object tag referencing an  
> embedded SVG document or some other document? XHTML 2.0 requires a lang  
> attribute on the document. It would be nice if we stressed consistency  
> across other XML markups - or we require this on the object tag.

"lang" or "xml:lang" only inherit within a document, they don't inherit  
their way into child documents. The same as with CSS and other things.

> Why do you refer to HTML4 in this spec. No HTML 4 implementation  
> supports DOM 3.

No XHTML implementation supports it either. In fact, I'm not aware of any  
implementation that has full DOM Level 3 support. (And then some parts of  
DOM Level 3 are still a note and not yet a recommendation.

> Also it is non-extensible which is problematic for adding accessibility  
> semantics targeted for XML markup.This ius a step backward. It would  
> seem that supporting an non-XML based infoset document format is a  
> mistake.

The whole web uses HTML. You would think that solutions for accessibility  
would also target the web as it is. Adding semantics in HTML is possible  
using the "profile" attribute and "class" attribute values. Extending  
allowed values for "rel", et cetera.

> 6.2 Focus Event triggered Child Element Animations
> In our new DHTML spec you do not need to use anchors - you may also use  
> divs and spans:
> <div TABINDEX= "-1">
>    <object type="image/svg+xml" data="foo1.svg">
>     <param name="animation" value="onfocusevent" />    </object>
> </div>
> It would be good to pull this in.

The attribute "TABINDEX" is not allowed on all elements. While I agree  
that such an extension of HTML 4 (and specifications that build on HTML 4,  
like XHTML 1 and the XHTML Modularization) would be quite useful for  
accessibility purposes I haven't seen any proposed errata from the HTML WG  
covering this change.

Also, in the above example, why not directly put it on the <object>  

> WICD Full 1.0 review
> So, why does full only support XHTML 1.1 when your document specifies  
> the use of XHTML 2 or other markups? Is it because the browser does not  
> support XHTML 2?

Which document specifies the use of XHTML 2?

> What is most concerning is these specs. address the use of ECMAScript  
> whose implementation on HTML or XHTML is frought with accessibility  
> problems due to gaps in HTML.

Has the WAI WG raised issues with the HTML WG on this? If there are indeed  
serious accessibility problems with HTML I suggest the WAI WG makes sure  
they get resolved given that HTML is about the only language really used  
on the web. The other 0.01% percent uses XHTML 1 which is based on HTML  
and has the same semantics.

Kind regards,

Anne van Kesteren

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Saturday, 28 January 2006 11:34:42 UTC