- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:50:23 +1000
- To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "Cynthia Shelly" <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > Marcos, Cynthia, > > Perhaps requirement #37 as currently written [1] is overly prescriptive. > > For example, rather than trying to enumerate the sub-requirements for the > other language (i.e. the non-HTML language), there could just be a reference > to a spec/doc that defines the requirements for a language to be accessible. > > Also, the last sentence appears to be a statement about a Widget instance > (and not a requirement for a Widget UA) and hence should not be normative. > > Combining the above comments, I get: > > [[ > A conforming specification must specify that the language used to declare > the user interface of a widget be either HTML or a language that is > accessible as defined by [?SOME-WAI-RESOURCE?]. > ]] > I'm willing to point the Requirements doc to WCAG 1 or 2 if the group wants me to. I personally don't agree with a lot of the things in WCAG 1 or 2, but if it's the best we have so be it. It would be helpful if others with more experience in this area could provide some guidance on how to proceed. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 05:51:00 UTC