- 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