Re: Dealy in "Common Purposes"

OK, I can commit to doing that.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:58:34 +0200 David MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca> wrote ---- 

> we can share our mapping file in xml or json.


Yes that would be helpful.


Cheers,
David MacDonald
 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
http://www.can-adapt.com/
  
  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities


If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy






 
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:48 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
Hi David 
Aas an implementer, we have mapping files. so we implement with our prefered technology and just map any other implementation to the same thing. This is trivial for programmers. We do not need to make a convoluted API just tell them exactly what to do and they can implement it as they want.
A month ago I added the values in the understanding section that show exactly how to implement each item in our list in the three recommended technologies. I believe it is at https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/blob/lseeman-understanding-idetify-comoon-pourpose/understanding/21/identify-common-purpose.html . However, if that is not enough we can share our mapping file in xml or json.

please let me know if there is anything is unclear. We can also have a short call and I can explain anything that is missing
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:25:03 +0200 David MacDonald<david100@sympatico.ca> wrote ---- 

Hi Alastair




> With it focusing on HTML’s autofill attributes, there has been widespread browser support for years

Yes absolutely... further in ​my
 email I suggested that we consider limiting the SC to HTML.  ​With each of Gregg's questions the only clear answer I was able to come up with was HTML autofill.​ However, Léonie is making a good case against referencing HTML directly and sticking with our list in the spec... I think Lisa would rather also prefer our list instead of referencing HMTL 5.2 ... so ... 



Lisa




I would like to see a more robust answer to Gregg's questions other than implementations are in place and coming... so far I haven't seen an explanation of how this will work, and the implementations I've seen seem to be general personalization widgets rather than an implementation of a set of form fields with a mapping functionality back to our common purposes...




Here are Gregg's questions:




=====




 how are different languages and different taxonomies being handled?    


how does the AT find the mapping of new terms back to the definitions in WCAG?   
how does AT know the format of the map?
it is machine readable?
how does the AT find that map?



=====




Are you saying 
schema​,​
 microdata​,​
 COGA attributes will all map back to our numbered list​ in these mapping documents that sit in the AT? If there are currently no implementations of this, is it reasonable to at least provide a step by step description of how it will work once implemented.








Cheers,
David MacDonald
 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub


http://www.can-adapt.com/
  
  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities


If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy






 
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
   > I share Gregg's concerns about the speculative nature of an SC that has no existing AT to make use of it
  
 Huh? With it focusing on HTML’s autofill attributes, there has been widespread browser support for years:
 https://caniuse.com/#search=autofil 
  
 Lisa also posted about a couple user-agent side implementations of the meta-data aspects, and 5 sites that are or will be using the more extended set now.
  
   Microdata is also standardised, but we seem to have dropped the non-autofil purposes, so I’ll stop there. 
  
 -Alastair