W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: CFC: Issue 72: Proposed change in definition to "set of web pages"

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:50:10 +0000
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C3F5BF1F-8082-493E-B5AC-79A1D207F650@nomensa.com>
Sorry, we’ve two things going on then:

> [Jason] Are you saying that the Web-based publication mentioned in the proposed example wouldn’t be a set of Web pages under WCAG 2.0? I do have problems with using an example to change the scope of a definition;

No, the definition remains the same, and should be considered to cover epub now (although as you pointed out there are issues with the definition of page)

By normative change I thought you meant any change to normative text, which I think it is. The discussion from the minutes indicated that it was a backwards compatible change, and simply adds a specific example.

The addition is signalling that epub is explicitly covered, at least when available from a URI.

> a publication contained in an archive would not be covered; as stated in my earlier post, that’s still a problem, and if anyone thinks that this archive issue is resolved by the current proposal then there is a need for further work and clarification before endorsing the change recommended in this CFC.

I can load an epub in my browser (with plugin or via Amazon reader) from a URI, and it invisibly unpacks the archive and displays it as a single page with internal navigation. I don’t see why something in an archive isn’t covered if it is essentially HTML loading in a user-agent. Most text content is gzipped in transit anyway, the transmission format isn’t important.

There is more to do, but this is a first step.


Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 13:50:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC