- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:48:54 -0500 (EST)
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- cc: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
I don't think so.
Checkpoint 1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all accessibility information
during authoring, transformations, and conversions.
(priority 1, effectively requires two different things. One is that markup
is/can be preserved, the other is that when transforming content all the
information must be preserved. As an issue for ATAG 2 it might be worth
seperating these out more exllicitly. Actually I think the first case is
covered better in
Checkpoint 4.3 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the
tool. [Priority 2]
What do folks think?
Charles McCN
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Karl Dubost wrote:
A comment for ATAG editors, and others
********
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS/#check-prefer-w3c
2.1 [...]
Specifications that become W3C Recommendations after an
authoring tool's development cycles permit input are not considered
"available" in time.
* Ensure that the tool recognizes and preserves elements that
are defined in the relevant specification(s) even if it is unable to
render them. This is particularly important for WYSIWYG editing tools.
*********
and
******
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/#gl-language-support
2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are
available and appropriate for a task. [Priority 2]
*******
I think that the a conforming authoring tool must absolutely preserve
the old version code, except if the user wants to modify it to a new
version. Are the two points contracditory?
--
Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 11:48:56 UTC