RE: CfC: Pull Request 137

From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 1:18 PM

Question: is this then worth re-opening? ePub is moving towards HTML5, but we don't really say anything about SVG (which is a growing technology) and perhaps we should, given that:
a) WCAG is (should be) technology agnostic, and,
b) this applies to both 4.1.1 Parsing "In content implemented using markup languages...", as well as 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value with the Note: "This success criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or script their own user interface components." (which one can do with SVG, for example)
c) with a bit of a stretch we could also say that this applies to ARIA, where if you DON'T use ARIA "according to their (it's) respective specification(s)" you will again have content that may not be accessible due to a "robustness" failure.

Thoughts?

This technique at the very least applies to HTML and XHTML. Removing the reference to XHTML is a step in the wrong direction, so it’s -1 from me to the CFC.

The text should also be updated. XHTML 5 is the current version of XHTML:
https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml


I also support John’s comment about SVG. I think this working group should collaborate with the SVG Accessibility Task Force to define WCAG techniques for SVG (both stand-alone SVG graphics and SVG embedded in an HTML or XHTML context). This, however, is a larger issue than the present CFC.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________