- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:10:07 +0100
- To: TSD TF <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>
Hi Shadi, At 19:20 11/02/2009, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: >Hi Christophe, > >An issue with Rulesets.xml: it does not have WCAG 2.0 Principles, >and I believe it is possible to have Techniques (therefore Test >Samples) for such requirements. In order to include principles in Rulesets.xml, I would need to change the Rulesets schema. This is not a problem, but WCAG 2.0 currently doesn't have techniques directly under principles. (It also doesn't have Understanding docs for principles.) Currently, WCAG 2.0 has techniques for success criteria and guidelines, and these are covered by the current Rulesets. If the Understanding and Techniques documents were changed to include techniques directly under principles, there would be no way to link to them from WCAG 2.0 itself without changing the document, which would trigger another cycle of WCAG 2.0 reviews etc... >Also, it would be good to use the actual WCAG 2.0 fragments (such as >#media-equiv) for the IDs, so that it is easier to construct URIs >(now that WCAG is stable, using the fragments should be OK). It also >allows tools to bypass the rulesets.xml if they only want to >identify the requirement. That shouldn't be difficult; it's just a matter of "find and replace" with a fairly straightforward regular expression, because the end of each ruleset URL already contains the corresponding WCAG 2.0 fragment identifier. Best regards, Christophe >How can this be addressed? > >Regards, > Shadi > >-- >Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ | > WAI International Program Office Activity Lead | > W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair | -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ --- Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't. Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 10:17:38 UTC