- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:07:09 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <00ab01c67935$1470eb50$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
#LC-513 Jason White 592006 W2 4.1 TE Comment "This guideline doesn't require the use of technologies, for example markup languages, in accordance with the semantics defined in specifications. Assistive technologies such as braille translators, as well as content transformation tools, rely upon the assumption that elements and attributes of markup languages are used to convey the meanings prescribed in specifications. To the extent that content departs from this requirement, programmatic determination of structural and other aspects of content is precluded, being reduced instead to a probabilistic matter requiring heuristics to be introduced by the software developer. Although the definition of "programmatically determined" refers to support by user agents, it doesn't explicitly refer to standards governing the technologies used in the content." Proposed Change "Add a requirement under this guideline to the effect that, for each technology in the baseline that is defined in a specification, every feature of the technology is used in conformity with the meaning and purpose prescribed in the specification. Even better, require it to be used in accordance with the meaning, purpose and syntax prescribed in the specification. Alternatively, if the above is too strong a requirement, restrict it at level 1 to every feature used to enable the structure, purpose or meaning of the content to be programmatically determined. That is, if the feature is used to enable programmatic determination for purposes of meeting the guidelines, then it must be used in accordance with the syntax and semantics defined in the specification governing the technology. This falls short of a requirement of full syntactic and semantic correctness, but the stronger requirement could be added at level 2 or level 3." Proposed Resolution - from Team A The group looked at this topic carefully over an extended period of time. In the end the group concluded that although strictly adhering to specifications had many benefits, it also has limitations. It is one reason why all the technical specifications are voluntary and why companies often vary from them. With regard to WCAG the working group tried to restrict itself to its charter and only include things that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use technologies according to specification" do relate to accessibility. However, others did not. So requiring this went beyond accessibility. RE the second suggestion above; "feature used to enable the structure, purpose or meaning of the content to be programmatically determined" are all required already by 1.3.1 so there would not be a need to add a new SC in 4.1.
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 22:07:19 UTC