Re: About tests 37-41 (headers)

I thought we came down against requiring strict application, based on Ben's
navigation bar example.


On 2/19/06 6:17 PM, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:

> 
> Good work on codifying this.
> 
> There was a question though about whether this strict an application of the
> headers was required by the success criterion or even by the HTML spec.
> 
> Does someone remember where we came down on this at the meeting?
> 
> 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 Vicente Luque Centeno
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:23 PM
> To: Chris Ridpath
> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: About tests 37-41 (headers)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have improved the formalization rules for headers. The following XPath
> expressions address all headers that skip a downward sequence, according to
> tests 37-41.
> 
> For all of them (except for h1):
> 
> * The preceding header is calculated. If none, current header is badly
> placed.
> 
> * We take the closest preceding header to the current one (we get that with
> the [1]).
> 
> * We check if that closest header is OK:
> H6's closest preceding header must be a h5 or h6.
> H5's closest preceding header must be a h4 or h5 or h6.
> H4's closest preceding header must be a h3 or h4 or h5 or h6.
> H3's closest preceding header must be a h2 or h3 or h4 or h5 or h6.
> H2's closest preceding header must be a any header.
> For all: otherwise, current header is badly placed.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> The rules are the following:
> 
> //h6[not(preceding::*[self::h1 or self::h2 or self::h3 or self::h4 or
> self::h5 or self::h6][1][self::h5 or self::h6])]
> 
> //h5[not(preceding::*[self::h1 or self::h2 or self::h3 or self::h4 or
> self::h5 or self::h6][1][self::h4 or self::h5 or self::h6])]
> 
> //h4[not(preceding::*[self::h1 or self::h2 or self::h3 or self::h4 or
> self::h5 or self::h6][1][self::h3 or self::h4 or self::h5 or self::h6])]
> 
> //h3[not(preceding::*[self::h1 or self::h2 or self::h3 or self::h4 or
> self::h5 or self::h6][1][self::h2 or self::h3 or self::h4 or self::h5 or
> self::h6])]
> 
> //h2[not(preceding::*[self::h1 or self::h2 or self::h3 or self::h4 or
> self::h5 or self::h6][1])]
> 
> //h1[not(true())] (which is //h1[false()], which is () )
> 
> Vicente Luque Centeno
> Dep. Ingeniería Telemática
> Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
> http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc
> 
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Vicente Luque Centeno wrote:
> 
>> 
>> All these examples also work with my rules :-)
>> 
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>> 
>>> These tests are designed to detect when header levels are skipped in
>>> a downward sequence. For example:
>>> h1 followed by an h2 is OK
>>> h1 followed by an h3 is bad
>>> 
>>> Another example:
>>> h3 followed by an h4 is OK
>>> h3 followed by an h5 is bad
>>> 
>>> Header levels can be skipped in an upward sequence. For example:
>>> h4 followed by an h2 is OK
>>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Vicente Luque Centeno wrote:
>>>> Those h2 having no preceding h1 are an error:
>>>> 
>>> The group does not have a test for whether the first header in the
>>> document must be an h1.
>> 
>> Neither of my expressions say that explicitly. However, by proper
>> deduction and combination of my rules, you will implicitly obtain that
>> there is no other possibility. So, yes, the first header in the
>> document must be an h1 (or there should be no header at all) if tests
>> 37-41 should be followed. There is no explicit rule for that, but it
>> is derived from tests 37-41.
>> 
>>> There are no tests that check for multiple h1s in the same document.
>> 
>> That's why I did not include a rule saying:
>> 
>> count(//h1) <= 1
>> 
>> Cheers.
>> 
>> Vicente Luque Centeno
>> Dep. Ingeniería Telemática
>> Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
>> http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 02:26:32 UTC