Re: Wording of Notes on 4.1.1 Parsing for WCAG 2.0 & 2.1

Hi Steve,

(Separating this thread with adjusted subject line.)

In the meeting notes linked there was quite a bit of discussion about whether to just state HTML only, or include other examples.

XML was thought to be a safe example to add because (as you pointed out) everyone gets the error message, rather than the AT interrogating the source code instead of the browser.

I appreciate it works differently from HTML, and the rest of the note is focused on the HTML aspect.

We can outline different scenarios in the understanding doc, but we were trying (and somewhat failing) to keep it concise.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Steve Faulkner
Hi, I am unclear as to why XML is included?


 <p class="note">This Success Criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML.</p>
I don't believe it is the case that XHTML served as application/XML to a browser, for example test.xhtml:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
  <title>Title of document</title>
</head>
<body>

  some content here...
 <b><i>Some text</b></i>
 <p>This is a paragraph
<p>This is another paragraph
</body>
</html>

is parsed by and coerced into a DOM using the HTML parser.

For example when opened in Chrome I get the following error

This page contains the following errors:
error on line 10 at column 21: Opening and ending tag mismatch: i line 10 and b
Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.
some content here...


On 5/2/23, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends Monday May 8th at 1pm Boston time.
>
>
>
> We previously agreed to add notes to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 for SC 4.1.1 Parsing:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0426.html
>
>
>
> We followed up with a meeting where we agreed the wording:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2023/04/04-ag-minutes#item04
>
>
>
> This CFC is to agree the wording, which is available in this PR:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3152/files
>
>
>
> The next step (in a future CFC) will be to agree the re-publishing of WCAG
> 2.1 & 2.0 in order that these notes (and all the previous errata) are
> visible in the latest versions of each.
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being
> able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC
> deadline.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/><http://www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2023 23:33:09 UTC