- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:08:27 +0100
- To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Here is the second, and last, set of proposed responses to WCAG folks on their responses to our review comments. RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ http://www.w3.org/International/ http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] > Sent: 18 May 2007 00:43 > To: Richard Ishida > Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org > Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April > 2006 (2 of 2) > > 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. Ok now. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Now that things have settled down, the best strategy is to replace all links to RFC 4646 with links to BCP 47. RFC 4646 will be replaced fairly soon with another RFC, but BCP 47 will continue to refer to the latest relevant RFC. The link is: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Again, we should probably now change "conforms to RFC 4646: Tags for the identification of languages or its successor [LC-1391]" to "conforms to BCP 47: Tags for the Identification of Languages" > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Actually the example is still there. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. The link is now good, but the link text refers to XML 1.01 - that should probably be XML 1.0. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Again, we should probably now change "conforms to RFC 4646: Tags for the identification of languages or its successor [LC-1391]" to "conforms to BCP 47: Tags for the Identification of Languages" > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. OK now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Hmm. Sort of ok. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Ok now. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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. OK now. >
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 17:07:14 UTC