RE: Comments on SVG Accessibility Mappings -- Language and Scope

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds []
>Since the approach of the SVG working group is that SVG won't have strict
>versioning, and new SVG features should be backwards-compatible, I don't
>think the SVG Accessibility doc should have separate rules for SVG 2 vs SVG
>1.1.  However, since the SVG 2 text hasn't been finalized, we don't want to
>explicitly repeat rules that might become outdated.

Not for the first public working draft, but I would hope the SVG accessibility API mapping specification (now on a Recommendation track) would be on a time-line synchronized with that of the SVG 2 specification. In that case, we should be able to include all necessary features to support SVG 2 fully.
>Instead, perhaps include a more general statement that, if there are more
>than one `<title>` or `<desc>` elements, the accessible name/description
>computations will use choose one according to the rules defined in the SVG
>specifications.  For the working drafts, you could add an Editor's Note pointing
>to both the SVG 1.1 section and the draft SVG 2 section.

That seems reasonable to me, although developers might well prefer all the rules to be in the one document for testing and implementation purposes.

If the publication schedules are aligned (accessibility API mappings and SVG 2), then this shouldn't present a problem.


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 18:28:49 UTC