- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:37:06 -0000
- To: "Timothy Stephen Springer" <timsp@ssbtechnologies.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> From my understanding no-one is proposing taking the accessibility features > out of the complete set of XHTML elements. Merely extending particular > modules to allow for document validation based on accessibility. Take them out? We want to add accessibility! I'm not actually sure how the ERT group wants to proceed on using m12n to add accessibilty features, and take away prsentation. > I would agree with the approach that we should create modules that can be > included to extend / override the standard XHTML DTD. In fact we could > create three modules, one mapping to each priority / conformance level. Good idea, but what would be even more helpful is actual examples. What needs to be changed in 1.1/m12n to meet A/AA/AAA? Be as precise as you can, and then I can try to work out if that's ever going to be doable. > It should be stressed, though, that XML validating parser and the DTD > specification are extremely limited in their ability to define documents. > The majority of accessibility problems lie outside of the realm of issues > that can be specified using a DTD. The meaningful alt text mentioned in a > previous post comes to mind. Yeah, I know. We *could* write our own Schema language... <element name="img"> <attribute mane="alt" content="textual alternative" type="required"/> <attribute name="src" content="URI" type="required"/> </element> But that would be taking it a touch too far probably. > So while the modular extensions to the XHTML DTD are a great idea I would > caution any member of this group from stating that we can produce > "verifiably accessible" XHTML documents. While that is impossible, it doesn't stop us working towards it. In fact the real aim is: make 1.1/m12n/2.0 more accessible. There are a variety of ways of going about that, and we need to fully investigate and use every single one. > With that said: Is anyone interested an working to author and alpha module > for P1 && P2? P1 && P2? What's that all about then? Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/ "Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics." - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 15:39:32 UTC