- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:08:46 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Janina Sajka, Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:34:20 -0500: > Leif Halvard Silli writes: > This document applies to everything. I agree that the Alt Techniques document could be applied outside HTML5. > The human side of the guidance it > provides does not differ. Only the lexical markup differs. It's not > practical to try and have documents for each technology, as the > explanations would be the same, and would constitute most of the text. > The lexical part is by far the smallest part. I don't think it quite makes sense to measure what is the longest — the syntax or the explanation of how to use it: If we remove the syntax, then I believe the Alt Technique text becomes nearly meaningless. In fact, below, you explain the usefulness of code examples. > Furthermore, it's helpful > to both authors and developers to have lexical examples for multiple > languages together in the same place when the author/developer is > already familiar with one ml, the parallel usage, presented in parallel, > will only aid comprehension. May be. But if I don't know the other languages, then it is just a distractions. I don't need to read about ODF — or Word — if my focus on HTML. Also, The task of this working group is only HTML. Further more, I think that the more we describe how to make 'the lexical examples' HTML, then the more it can be repurposed, in other specs for other formats. I would give the spec authors the task of seeing how the same principles applies to many formats - rather than give it to the spec readers. > Please consider the job from the human perspective to get a better sense > of this. By 'from the human perspective' you mean 'spec writers'? At any rate, I could certainly see a value, for some, of a document that took a document agnostic perspective. But for most readers, whether it is general or special, may have a lot to say about how they understand the text - and how authoritative they consider it to be. I keep coming back to ARIA 1.0: It is general enough. Still HTML5 defines how to use it. In theory, HTML5 did not have to define a single thing — it could just have said: 'please read ARIA - everything ARIA says is permitted, you may do in HTML5'. Instead HTMl5 has defined how to use ARIA in HTML5 - and that is also in line with ARIA itself to do so. I don't understand this group should not be the right place for taking a similar approach to WCAG: Define what it means inside HTMl5. -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 01:09:21 UTC