W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2007

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (2 of 2)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:42:39 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171642g26ee2a4bu27d4f936a6e340ef@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Comment 15:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174808.EFB774F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1386)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 4
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H57, H58, Description

Comment:
"(Note that HTML only offers the use of the lang attribute, while
XHTML (transitionally) allows both attributes or onlyxml:lang ,
respectively, since lang was removed in XHTML 1.1.)"


This would be clearer if it said


(Note that HTML only offers the use of the lang attribute, while XHTML
1.0 (as a transitional measure) allows both attributes, and XHTML 1.1
allows only xml:lang.)

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with your suggestion and have changed the description of
these techniques accordingly.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 16:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174826.EB0084EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1387)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 5
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H57, example 1

Comment:
This example, unlike the two following, omits the  element. It seems
at best inconsistent. (Note, btw, that these examples are invalid,
since the title element is required.)

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The draft has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 17:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174852.4A2774EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1388)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 6
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H57, H58, Resources

Comment:
There is a pointer to RFC 3066 'Tags for the Identification of
Languages'. This specification has now been superceded by RFC3066bis,
although, unfortunately, there is no number for the new RFC just yet.
We suggest that you add a new link as soon as possible.


In the meantime, you may wish to point to
http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/rfc3066bis.html

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have updated the reference to refer to the updated RFC 4646.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 18:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174919.B3C5F4F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1389)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 7
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H57, Resources

Comment:
There is a link to


Using language information in XHTML, HTML and CSS


We suspect that what you meant to link to was


Declaring Language in XHTML and HTML
[http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/language-decl/]

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The link has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 19:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174935.06B664F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1390)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 8
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H57, Resources

Comment:
There is no mention of bidi in this technique, so we think the last
two links in this section are irrelevant.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

Agree. They are not needed here and are referred to in the related
techniques on text direction.   The references have been removed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 20:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175007.B909F4F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1391)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 10
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H57, Tests

Comment:
Step 3 should say 'conforms to RFC 3066 or its successor', since RFC
3066 is now, already out of date, and RFC 3066bis should be used. Note
that hopefully it will be possible to point to its successor very soon
- we are awaiting the assignment of an RFC number.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with this suggestion and have updated the reference to refer
to RFC 4646 or its successor.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 21:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174948.D0ADE4F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1392)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 9
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H57, Tests

Comment:
Step 2 should say 'a lang and/or xml:lang attribute'.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with your suggestion and have added xml:lang to step 2.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 22:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175029.ADF8E4F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1393)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 11
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H58, title

Comment:
This technique is titled:

Using the lang attribute to identify changes in the natural language

But it should make reference to the xml:lang attribute too. We suggest:

Using language attributes to identify changes in the natural language

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with your suggestion and have changed the title of the technique.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 23:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175043.4F51C4EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1394)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 12
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H58 example 1

Comment:
Is je ne sais quoi really French still?

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

You are correct.  The phrase "je ne sais quoi" is listed in english
dictionaries.   The example has been removed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 24:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175106.27BF64EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1395)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 14
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H58, Resources

Comment:
This is a strange version number, and the link points to the First
Edition, whereas we are up to the 3rd edition now, and soon 4th.
Please point to the generic URI
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The link has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 25:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175128.95DFB4F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1396)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 15
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H58, Resources

Comment:
This points to an obsolete document. Please update to point to
http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The link has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 26:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175145.6C0704F0C9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1397)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 16
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H58, Tests

Comment:
Please add text referring to xml:lang to the procedure.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with your suggestion and have added xml:lang to the procedure.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 27:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175205.E14354EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1398)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 17
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H58 Tests

Comment:
Please require conformance to RFC 3066 *or its successor*, since it
has already been succeeded, and change this as soon as RFC 3066bis has
an RFC number.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with this suggestion and have updated the reference to refer
to RFC 4646 or its successor.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 28:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175241.41FBF4EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1399)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 18
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H62, Descn

Comment:
Ruby text is said to be rendered "above or immediately before the base
text'. The word 'before' here is a technical usage meaning above
horizontal text or to the right of vertical text. This is not clear to
the reader of this technique, and should be made so.


The sentence "A Ruby annotation that gives the meaning of the base
text usually follows the base text" is also not clear. It should say
that sometimes Japanese uses ruby related to the meaning of text on
the other side of the base text (visually) from the phonetic
annotation.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with your recommendations and have modified the description.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 29:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175333.276E04EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1400)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 20
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H62, Examples

Comment:
Examples 1 and 2 should have rp tags. There is no good reason to leave
them out. This will just set a bad example.


This comment, of course, affects Example 3 also.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

Thank you for your comment. We've removed example 1 and 2, and
modified the other examples to explain the use of the rp tags.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 30:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175314.32AF54EFAA@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1401)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 19
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H62, Desc

Comment:
"Ruby annotation is unnecessary in languages such as Hebrew, where
Unicode fonts can include diacritical marks that convey pronunciation.
It is also unnecessary in English and European languages."


Note that Ruby provides for annotations that can equally well be used
in non-Asian text. We suggest "Ruby annotation is uncommon in
languages such as ".


(Note that the term Ruby derives from *English* typesetting practise.)
(Note also that you actually include an example of Ruby used with
English a little further down the page.)

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

Thank you. We have adopted your suggestion.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 31:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175403.6DBEC4EFAA@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1402)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 21
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H62, Examples

Comment:
"rp is used to ensure that pronunciation information shown through
Ruby text is displayed by user agents that do not support Ruby
annotation."

This is misleading. The ruby text is always shown - adding rp doesn't
do anything other than make it clearer, for non-ruby enabled user
agents, that the ruby text is ruby text and not a typo.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We agree with your suggestions. We have clarified the purpose of the rp element.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 32:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175430.8BA394EEC9@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1403)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 22
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H62, Resources

Comment:
There are resources dedicated to Ruby on the i18n subsite. We are not
sure why you don't link to them. eg. see links from
http://www.w3.org/International/techniques/markup#ruby .

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have added the suggested link to the resources for H62.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 33:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627175452.03DC24EFAA@homer.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1404)

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/

Comment 23
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H62, Tests

Comment:
"the rp element is used to provide pronunciation information for user
agents that do not support Ruby annotations"

This is misleading. It should say something like

"the rp element is used for user agents that do not support Ruby
annotations to indicate that text in rt elements provides
pronunciation information"

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have adopted your clarification of the purpose of the rp element.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:43:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:07 UTC