Re: Open issues for today's call

Daniel Dardailler wrote:
> There was also the issue brought by Dan Connolly in IG on a new
> checkpoint for font tag abuse. My guess is that we consider that 5.4
> onusing Style is enough.

We can add "Don't use FONT to the techniques" if it's not clear
enough. However, the techniques doc already states in 2.10:


          Instead of using deprecated presentation elements 
          and attributes, use the many CSS properties to control font
          characteristics: 'font-family', 'font-size',
'font-size-adjust',                 'font-stretch', 'font-style',
'font-variant', and 'font-weight'.

> Also the issue of considering the checklist to be part of the
> guidelines (a different view in fact) but still being an addressable
> document (that we can use for quick reference from WAI Home page for
> instance). 

This doesn't seem like an issue to me. You can point to a chapter
of the HTML 4.0 spec, which is a different document than the
cover page. It's addressable separately but still part of the spec.

> In a sense the checklist could be implemented as being the
> same guidelines file with a different style sheet (we'd need XSL for
> that I guess), so I'm not sure we need a proper review of it.

I don't think we need to go this far.
> Could you confirm the alt wording issue in the intro (as discussed in
> is being addressed as an editorial task.

Here is the comment from L. David Baron. I think it's not
just editorial.

> [Beginning of Baron quote]
> In the introduction to [1], you say:
>   User agents can render "alt" text as a tool tip, thus providing
>   additional information to the general populace.
> I think recommending that alt text be rendered as a tooltip is a bad
> idea, since it will encourage authors to write alt text that is
> suitable for a tooltip rather than alt text suitable for replacing an
> image.  (The title attribute is generally considered more appropriate
> for tooltips, I think.)
> [End of Baron quote]

> I'm now counting three different person saying that Checkpoint 15.9
>  "Facilitate off-line browsing by creating a single downloadable file"
> is not an accessibility problem per-se or at least should be made more
> generic (with technique being specific)
> So that's an issue to discuss as well.

> In todays's comments from Warner ten Kate, I'd like to emphasize that
> I disagree with
>   putting the emphasis on serving people with disabilities only

See my response to her as well.

> and that I agree with
>   renumbering to use a simple numbering for the guidelines and
>   checkpoint: 1.1, 3.4, not A.2.1.

That's what we already have. The issue is whether the "Section
A" should be "Section 1" instead. The "A" part is not longer
involved in the guideline numbering.

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs ( 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814

Received on Thursday, 11 March 1999 13:42:13 UTC