- 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