ATAG 2.0 rewording proposal for A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information

On the call we ran into disagreement with the A.2.2.1 proposal (repeated below):
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20111014/results#xq8
"
A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information:
If an editing-view highlights parts of the content being edited to indicate information about the content (e.g. an underline indicating a spelling error), then the information being indicated can be programmatically determined.
"

FIRST, I want to ask if the problem is with the wording or if there really is a question whether we should be requiring semantic encoding of indicators for things like: spelling errors, grammar errors, syntax errors, change tracking, etc.?

SECOND, I will propose a rewording that perhaps is less sweeping than "information":
A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Indicators:
If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content being edited, then the status messages being indicated can be programmatically determined.
Note: Status indicators may indicate errors (e.g. spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or other information.


Cheers,
Jan

(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocad.ca<mailto:jrichards@ocad.ca>

Twitter @OCAD<http://twitter.com/ocad>
Facebook www.facebook.com/OCADUniversity<http://www.facebook.com/ocaduniversity>

OCAD UNIVERSITY
100 McCaul Street, Toronto, Canada  M5T 1W1
www.ocadu.ca<http://www.ocad.ca>