Re: ReSpec toolchain...

Okay Steve - happy to ignore the A11Y aspect of it.

Regardless, it is an unreasonable burden for the consumers of our specs to
have to wait while they are rendered via JS.  On a large spec, even on a
modern client, this can take many many seconds.  Also, there is the
(substantial) risk that the document will effectively change from one day
to the next as improvements / changes are made to ReSpec.

I would oppose any movement toward allowing formal W3C specification
publications to be dynamically generated in the client.


On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think that a non JS dependent version of  document that is essentially
> words, is reasonable.
> I disagree with it being justified in terms of it being an accessibility
> requirement. Non JS based content being specifically required for users
> with disabilities is a requirement with no basis.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>
>
> On 14 July 2014 19:47, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:
>
>> is there a law or regulation that requires scripting for the web? Who
>> enforces this?
>>
>> Isn’t there a lot of legacy of both sites and devices?
>>
>> regards, Frederick
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
>> Chair DAP
>> @fjhirsch
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On July 14, 2014 at 12:09:31 PM, Shane McCarron (shane@aptest.com)
>> wrote:
>> >> Well, first, any UA may have JS disabled.
>> >
>> > The Web depends on scripting, it's not something you can just "turn
>> off" and expect that it will work. A UA that doesn't support scripting is
>> not a conforming UA (i.e., the vendor should be encouraged to fix that, or
>> users should be encouraged to use a modern web browsers).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>