Summaries of issues around checkpoints 1.4 and 1.5

Hi, All:

My action items were to summarize and suggest resolutions for 
checkpoints 1.4 and 1.5. I will separate them into two emails.  This one 
is dedicated to Checkpoint 1.4.  I will send out 1.5 tomorrow.

I actually found the sorting of all issues related to these checkpoints 
rather difficult and confusing (probably partly due to being a first 
time Bugzilla user). It seems like some issues have already been 
addressed, and maybe bugs just need to be closed?  Anyway, here's my 
best shot:

                    *******************************************************

[INTRODUCTION]

Checkpoint 1.4 from WCAG 2.0 Internal Draft (17 November 2003) currently 
reads:
    "All text can be decoded into words represented in Unicode."
Success Criteria Level One:
    1.   text in the content is provided in Unicode or sufficient 
information is provided so that it can be automatically mapped back to 
Unicode.
Success Criteria Level Two:
    1.   abbreviations and acronyms are clearly identified each time 
they occur if they collide with a word in the standard language that 
would also logically appear in the same case (e.g. all caps).
    2.    symbols such as diacritic marks that are found in standard 
usage of the natural language of the content, and that are necessary for 
unambiguous identification of words, are present or another standard 
mechanism for disambiguation is provided.
Success Criteria Level Three:
None

[OUTSTANDING ISSUES]

1.   In a current proposal, CKW and Greg Gay suggest that checkpoint 
1.4  success criterion 1 and 2 from Level 2 be combined with checkpoint 
3.2, and read something like the following:
    1. abbreviations and acronyms are clearly identified each time they 
occur or are available in a glossary that is explicitly associated with 
the content.
    2. symbols such as diacritic marks that are found in standard useage 
of the natural language of the content, and that are necessary for 
unambiguous identification of words, are present or another standard 
mechanism for disambiguation is provided.

Also, Harvey Bingham suggests a forward reference to Checkpoint 3.2 in 
the "Benefits of..." section, since they both deal with acronyms.

from CKW re-write, and bugzilla  #607 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=607>, #442 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=442>, and  #375 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=375>

<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=375>2.   The 
re-wording proposal of Checkpoint 1.4 suggests changing from
    "All text can be decoded into words represented in Unicode."
to
    "For text, use fonts that can be represented in Unicode."
 From Ben Caldwell, Bugzilla issue #606 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=606>

3.   Bugs #375 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=375>and #606 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=606>seem to be 
duplicates - a suggestion to close one over the other has been made.

4.   Bug #608 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=608>suggests 
re-wording for the level 2 success criterion:

Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 1.4

1. abbreviations and acronyms are clearly identified each time they
occur if they collide with a word in the standard language that would
also logically appear in the same case (e.g. all caps). (See also
checkpoint 3.1) [I#341]

2. symbols such as diacritic marks that are found in standard usage of
the natural language of the content, and that are necessary for
unambiguous identification of words, are present or another standard
mechanism for disambiguation is provided.

Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 1.4

1. abbreviations and acronyms are clearly identified each time they
occur if they are identical to a word in the document's language that
has a different meaning. (See also checkpoint 3.1) [I#341]

2. symbols such as diacritic marks that are found in standard usage of
the natural language of the content, and that are necessary for precise
identification of words, are present, or another standard mechanism for
clear identification is provided.

[SUMMARY OF ISSUES]

1.   It seems that there is some confusion about the tone of this 
checkpoint overall.  Although it intends to apply to "disambiguating 
language," its references to acronyms and abbreviations make it appear 
related to Checkpoint 3.2 (hence the CKW suggestion to merge the two 
together).  The questions to be answered then are: (a) What separates 
3.2 from 1.4?  (b) Are the differences enough to merit a separate 
checkpoint?  (c) Are there parts that merit a separate checkpoint and 
parts that should be merged with 3.2?  (d)  If so, what are the parts?
2.   Re-wording at all levels of the success criterion is needed for 
clarity.

[PROPOSED SOLUTIONS]

1.   The level 2 success criterion should either be clarified as being 
different from the requirements in checkpoint 3.2, or should be merged 
with checkpoint 3.2.  This would leave the Unicode part of checkpoint 
1.4 on its own.
2.   Re-wording, as proposed in bug #606 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=606> should be adopted.
3.   Re-wording for success criterion 1 and 2 of level 2 should be 
adopted whether or not those success criterion are merged with 
Checkpoint 3.2.  (#608 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=608>)


Cheers,
-Kerstin