- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:30:13 +0300
- To: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi,
To keep the meeting manageable, I am proposing resolutions to some bugs
for the agenda. Note that there are some outstanding bugs which I think
are more complex, and I will write a separate message about them. Note
that most proposed resolutions are incorporated in the editor's draft
published today.
Agenda+ "reflects" bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21236
Proposed Resolution: Close as fixed, as per the editor's draft.
This was raised because Anne van Kesteren pointed out that we didn't
reflect the attribute between HTML and DOM attributes. I have added the
definition of reflecting and noted it in the IDL description now.
Agenda+ how to repair broken longdesc
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21439 blocks
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21678
Proposed Resolution: Remove the statement, retain the example of
conversion to data URL, close the two bugs
This was raised by Leif, and the counter-bug (to make the repair "should
not") was raised by the i18n WG. I propose to remove the statement since
it is only a "MAY" requirement and really belongs in UAAG techniques, but
to leave the example there along with an informative reference to UAAG.
While saving authors from broken content doesn't teach them to do the
right thing, saving users from those authors is IMHO more important when
we can do it.
Agenda+ Require "accessible" description -
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21437
Proposed Resolution: Close as partially done (as per editor's draft),
partially WontFix
Alternate Proposal: Close by adding a formal requirement that longdescs
meet some conformance level of WCAG
I have added some text about this, but the document defers to WCAG to
define what an accessible description is and doesn't require it as a MUST.
Requiring a particular level of WCAG conformance seems arbitrary to me -
unless it is complete it is too low, and if it is we are cutting off a lot
of useful if imperfect description.
Agenda+ Describe longdesc "link rot" issue -
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21493
Proposed Resolution: Close Won'tFix
Leif raised this, but I don't think site maintenance advice is useful in
the spec. He accepted that the bug could be wontfixed.
Agenda+ informative references... -
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21571
Proposed resolution: Close as partially fixed, partially WontFix
Leif raised a particular editorial bug and I changed the text to include
formal references.
Agenda+ Advice for conformance checkers -
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21501
Proposed Resolution: If possible, add a reference to *something then close
as Partially Fixed, partially WontFix
Leif raised this, and I added some basic stuff but want to defer complete
advice to the relevant documents. The guidance published by ERT for
conformance checking tools doesn't have any actual content. Is there
something useful to refer to?
Agenda+ "Vitruvian man" -
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21679
Proposed Resolution: Clarify the use case as per the bug comment, then
Close.
Richard Ishida raised this, and I explained that he had been confused by
an incomplete use case, which should be expanded. He accepted this as a
proposal.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 13:30:48 UTC