- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:10:54 +0200
- To: lisa@ubaccess.com
- CC: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Lisa Seeman wrote: > Becky, I think your premise hear that the DHTML road map will not be > valid may be incorrect. The DHTML road map (worked on with IBM and the > PF working group) is an example of the opposite, where this guideline > has course the grammars that you need to be published, as an XHTML > extension. Hence it will conform to formal grammars DTD or Schema- not > in a long time, but in about a month or two after it was pointed out > to the team that this was necessary. > > See comments in line > > Becky wrote: > >> For example, The DHTML roadmap extensions that I and others are >> working on are meant to help accessibility. .. >> > We are > >> working within the W3C to get this new technology fully supported >> in the specifications. But, that takes time and until that happens >> I could not conform to WCAG 2.0 if the validity requirement was at >> Level 1. WCAG 2.0 should not restrict projects that are working >> to improve accessibility by including Level 1 requirements that do >> not always guarantee accessibility. >> > > > As I understand it, because of this WCAG 2.0 requirement, at level 1, > an XHTML module will be published that conforms to the XHTML > extension specification, that will enable all of the functionality of > the current examples running with firefox. Note: XHTML is modular and > easily extended - it will take one person a few days to do so. In > other words this requirement has made your work more useful resulting > in the grammars being made available to all, and promoting > harmonization/unity of accessibility techniques and practices. > > All the best > > Lisa >
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 20:11:56 UTC