Updated proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC2

Joe Clark, Gregg, and Becky met to further discuss the Guideline 1.3 
proposal [1].  This discussion resulted in the following updated proposal 
for L1 SC2:

Markup or coding is used to encode document semantics 

Below is the background for the new proposal. 

At the May 5 and May 12 meetings  there was discussion of L1 SC 2: 
Structural markup or coding is used to encode semantics to the extent 
possible for the content. 
The following issues were raised:
-Issues with definition/understanding of semantics
-concerns about testability "(to the extent possible" is not testable)
-concerns whether or not this SC is needed - isn't this covered by L1 SC1?
-fell need for SC about that it has to be relative to the technologies 
that author is user 

With regards to the need for this SC some of the confusion seems to 
revolve around the how the term semantics is used.  Here are some simple 
explanations  we came up with to help clarify the difference:

L1 SC1 has been accepted as: Structures within the content can be 
programmatically determined. 
In HTML this means use headings tags, <h1>, <h2>,etc. rather than styled 
<divs> or <spans>. Because the technology being used, HTML in this case, 
provides a specific structural element for headings then these headings 
can be programmatically determined and must be used. 

L1 SC2 proposal is: Markup or coding is used to encode document semantics. 

For HTML, this is the case where <strong> or <em> or font size or style is 
used to add additional meaning to the content.  The <strong> and <em> 
elements are not considered "structural" markup which is why we removed 
the word structural from the beginning of this SC. 

To help clarify that this SC is not about structural semantics we have 
modified the proposal to use "document semantics" which is considered to 
be an understood term in the industry. 

While we didn't specifically address this in our meeting,  via email we 
agreed that we could leave out the phrase,  "to the extent possible". But, 
do the issues raised concerning testability still exist even with that 
phrase missing? Joe did have specific reasons for including it in his 
original proposal [2]. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0248.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0319.html


Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                       
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com