- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:27:36 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
- Message-ID: <55687cf80907080427j477528c1od451da759e08838e@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Sam, I was talking about the WCAG 2.0 techniques, technology specific ways to meet the WCAG 2.0 criteria are in the techniques documents. *1.3.1 Info and Relationships:* Information, structure<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#structuredef>, and relationships<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#relationshipsdef>conveyed through presentation<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#presentationdef>can be programmatically determined<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#programmaticallydetermineddef>or are available in text. (Level A) http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic references > Sufficient Techniques for 1.3.1 - Info and Relationships http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic lists > H73: Using the summary attribute of the table element to give an overview of data tables http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/html.html#H73 It would be inconsistent if use of the technique is encouraged by WCAG 2.0 for all other flavours of HTML but discouraged for HTML5. regards stevef 2009/7/8 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> > Steven Faulkner wrote: > >> Hi maciej, >> I am concerned that if the current wording of the spec is accepted we have >> a situation where one W3C specification - WCAG 2.0 encourages the use of >> the summary attribute, while the W3C html 5 specification discourages it. >> > > I've done a quick search, I can't find the text you mentioned: > > $ curl -s http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ | grep summary | wc -l > 0 > > For my part, if the HTML WG and WAI could reach a mutual stance on this, >> then consensus within the HTML WG would have a better chance of being >> reached without the need for a vote. >> > > +1 > > I will note that I would not consider it to be a problem if HTML 5 were > consistent with the future direction WCAG 2.0 successors are intending to > take, as opposed to what might be stated today. I mean that in the same > sense that HTML 5 has a (select few, intentional) differences from HTML 4. > > regards >> stevef >> > > - Sam Ruby > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 11:28:24 UTC