- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:19:33 +0200
- To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- CC: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org
Hi Christophe, Christophe Strobbe wrote: > > At 20:08 3/04/2007, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: >> After re-reading the checklist for content review, I wonder if we >> should say something about the usage of SpecName in the metadata. The >> SpecName technologies in there should really match the intention (or >> references) of the respective WCAG 2.0 Technique. >> >> Any objections? Any wording suggestions? > > I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. > Is this related to the applicability section in the WCAG 2.0 techniques > and failures? I.e. do you mean that the content review should check that > technologies in the test sample (or at least the technology in which the > technique or failure can be highlighted) is also in the applicability > section? (Or rather the other way around?) For example, the test sample "sc1.3.1_l1_018" applies to (X)HTML. What happens if the SpecName attribute (wrongly) refers to CSS instead? This must be checked... Regards, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 19:19:36 UTC