- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:00:51 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Good discussion. We are revising the baseline doc right now. Will try to capture some of this but it would be good to think of some good general language that makes this clear - and shows how to write baselines. More on this will follow though. How about the following 1) A technology or feature isn't in the baseline unless it is named in the baseline. 2) Baseline 'items' can include technologies, specific features, or well defined collections. 3) If a collection or general technology is specified in the baseline, the assumption is that all of its subparts, features, modules etc. are in the baseline unless excluded in the baseline definition. 4) "embed" could be listed in a baseline definition but is not part of HTML 4.01. Thoughts on the above? Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gez Lemon Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:27 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Baselines: how specific? Hi Christophe, <quote> A list of technologies is a simple binary representation that does not do justice to the reality of incomplete implementations by user agents. </quote> That's very true, and quite ironic given that UAAG couldn't be used because no user-agents adhere to it. It gets difficult, as we could easily end up with a situation where HTML couldn't be included as a technology because it's not properly supported. <quote> Some websites that puts HTML 4.01 in their baseline will assume that every feature is supported, while others will assume that object, link, longdesc, etc are not adequately supported by the user agents of a significant percentage of their visitors. This means that some websites will use fall-back techniques such as 'embed', while others will not. This takes me to another aspect of my original question: if websites use 'embed' or other non-standard features, shouldn't that be part of the baseline also? Just specifying 'HTML 4.01' in the baseline would be inaccurate. </quote> Some good points, but how would you specify a non-technology in the baseline? Putting, "non-standard HTML" wouldn't be acceptable. Maybe a better approach would be to assume that all features of a technology are supported, and introduce a "Repair Techniques" or similar section, where authors can document how they overcome known shortcomings in technologies. <quote> The third aspect of my question is whether a baseline should specify which version or profile of a technology is assumed. For example, is it sufficient to say "HTML 4.01" or is it necessary to say "HTML 4.01 Strict"? (I'm in favour of the latter, more specific, approach.) </quote> I'm also in favour of the latter, but can't help thinking that the extra information isn't really useful to anyone in terms of a conformance claim. If structure, presentation, and behaviour have been separated (a requirement of the guidelines), is there any benefit in knowing whether HTML as a technology is transitional or strict? <quote> Some W3C technologies have been "modularized": is it necessary to specify which modules are assumed to be supported? I think it is. The question about modularizaton also throws a different light on the question of specifying whether specific features (e.g. object in HTML) can be mentioned: after all, modules are collections of such features. </quote> Modules can also packaged, and I would personally prefer the technologies in the baseline to be as succinct as possible. For example, XHTML 1.0 is based on XHTML abstract modules [1], so I wouldn't see the point of listing them all individually if they were included as a collection (including other modular flavours of XML markup languages). I can see the purpose of including individual modules, such as XForm, but not the features of those modules. <quote> Is it also necessary to specify which MIME types are assumed to be supported? This is relevant when using XHTML 1.0. </quote> Another excellent point. MIME types aren't included in the definition of "technology", unless "data formats" covers this, but I would like to see it included. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/abstract_modules .html Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 14:01:01 UTC