Re: a proposed plan for publishing a public working draft mid-February

Chris wrote:

My current open issues are:

1.1.A - NULL alt text - allowed or not
1.1.A - Space "  " alt text - allowed or not
3.6 - "Mark up lists and list items properly" - I'm not sure how to do this


Wendy responded:

i think that 1.1.A will only be solved by user testing and gathering
data.  we can put our best guess in the public draft with a note that says
"awaiting data to make firm decision."  there are too many opinions
floating around about this one.  i don't want to open it up for discussion
again until we have data.  i proposed a survey, the response seemed to be
that this was a good idea.  no one volunteered to create the survey.  there
were questions as to what it would look like.  in our next meeting i think
we ought to discuss this and assign someone an action item. I'm willing to
do this if no one else volunteers, however i would like to see action items
being taken by a wider variety of participants on the list.

3.6  has this been discussed in the group?  could you point me to the
discussion in the archives or in minutes?  is the issue that one may
identify a list but aren't sure if it is marked up correctly?  a hack that
people used to use is an LI outside of a list to force indentation.  or a
UL with lots of Ps.  I believe an HTML validator would pick these up (this
ought to be verified).

i also think lots of single item lists is suspicious.  e.g.
<UL>
   <LI>
</UL>
<UL>
   <LI>
</UL>

or deeply nested lists:
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
   <LI>
</UL>
</UL>
</UL>
</UL>
</UL>
</UL>

so - anything that would indicate that a list is being used for formatting.

the repair is to transform to appropriate markup (most likely LI -> P) and
use style sheets (Or a table - yikes!) for layout.

--wendy

----- Original Message -----
From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 1:35 PM
Subject: a proposed plan for publishing a public working draft mid-February


> How are the general reviews of ERT coming along?  I have not seen any
> comments sent to the list.
>
> At the 3 January meeting [1] we decided to publish our first public
working
> draft in mid-February. To make that deadline we determined that
> 1. everyone needed to review the ERT in its entirety,
> 2. we would collect open issues,
> 3. clean up major issues as best we could before publishing a public
> working draft (rather than internal working drafts that are public.)
>
> Len sent e-mail last week asking for an intermediate draft before the
> Feburary goal.
>
> I propose that:
>
> 1. people review the document and send general comments to the list by
next
> monday's meeting (24 January).
> 2. I will publish an open issues list on Tuesday (25 January).
> 3. Chris and I will incorporate editorial comments and release another
> working draft on Friday (28 January).
> 4.  Open issues will be on the agenda for the meeting on 31 January.
> 5. I will update the open issues list on Tuesday 1 February
> 6. Chris and I will published an updated internal working draft on friday,
> 4 February.
> 7. open issues will be discussed on monday 7 february.
> 8. at the 14 February meeting determine if we want to make the 18 February
> draft public.
>
> therefore, we could start the following pattern:
> Tuesdays: open issues updated.
> Fridays: new working draft posted.
> Mondays: discuss open issues and evaluate how close we are to going
public.
>
> and then every 3 months take the most current working draft public.
>
> thoughts?
> --wendy
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/minutes/20000103.html
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> madison, wi usa
> tel: +1 608 663 6346
> /--

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 14:33:30 UTC