Re: 11.1 versus 11.2

Kitch Barnicle wrote:
> 
> Ian,
> 
> All of my comments appear at the top of this message.
> 
> I hadn't really noticed the issue that you pointed out regarding the fact that
> guideline 11 mentions W3C technologies specifically but covers more than W3C
> technologies.   I like your suggestion of changing the guideline to read
> something like "Support Open Specifications and Known Accessibility
> Features." 

Ok.

>  But I still think the wording of  checkpoint 11.2, Support
> appropriate W3C recommendations is confusing. Maybe I am just not in synch
> with
> W3C terminology.  Are there inappropriate W3C recommendations 
> or are we saying
> support those recommendations that apply to your user agent? 

Yes: markup language you recognize, content type your recognize, etc.

>
 Maybe it should
> just say Support W3C recommendations with no qualifier.  Are "W3C
> recommendations" different from "W3C technologies"?

Not so far, not.

However, in the GL group we chose not to say "Recommendation"
since people wouldn't know what it meant. We chose "Specification"
instead.

 - Ian

> kitch
> 
> At 10:47 AM 8/26/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >Kitch Barnicle wrote:
> >>
> >> What is the difference between checkpoint 11.1 and 11.2, which are both
> under
> >> the guideline "User agents should support applicable W3C technologies
> and in
> >> particular the accessibility features defined for the technology."
> >>
> >> 11.1 Implement the accessibility features defined for supported
> technologies.
> >> [Priority 1]
> >>
> >>  11.2 Support appropriate W3C Recommendations. [Priority 2] For instance,
> for
> >> document markup, support HTML and XML; for style sheets, support CSS; for
> >> mathematics, support MathML; for multimedia, support SMIL, etc.
> >
> >Hi Kitch,
> >
> >The differences are the following:
> >
> >1) 11.1 refers to any technologies, not just W3C technologies. This
> >   would make the either the Guideline too specific (since it
> >   mentions W3C) or the checkpoint too general (and it should be
> >   limited to W3C specs).
> >
> >2) 11.1 refers to support for accessibility features, 11.2 refers to
> >   support for standards. If you can't do all of a standard (Priority 2)
> >   then be sure to do the accessibility parts (Priority 1).
> >
> >There's an emphasis on W3C specs for reasons enumerated
> >in the rationale paragraph:
> >
> >   > * W3C technologies include "built-in" accessibility features.
> >   > * W3C specifications undergo early review to ensure that
> >       accessibility issues are considered during the design phase.
> >   > * W3C specifications are developed in an open, industry
> >       consensus process.
> >
> >To address the discrepancy between the guideline text and
> >the text of checkpoint 11.1, we could either:
> >
> >a) Expand the scope of the guideline to something like
> >   "Support Open Specifications and Known Accessibility Features"
> >
> >   We might add a checkpoint to the effect of "Support open standards",
> >   but I'm not convinced of the necessity.
> >
> >b) Reduce the scope of checkpoint 11.1 to be: "Implement
> >   accessibility features defined for supported W3C technologies."
> >
> >I propose (a) without an additional checkpoint.
> >
> >On a related note:
> >
> >Yesterday in the AU WG meeting [1] we debated the use of the
> >word "defined" in a similar checkpoint from the AU Guidelines.
> >Several people felt that "defined" was too strong a word.
> >
> >The 18 August version of the AU Guidelines [2] reads:
> >
> >  > 3.1 Implement all accessible authoring practices
> >  >     that have been defined for the markup
> >  >     language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1]
> >
> >
> >The 25 August version of the AU Guidelines [3] reads:
> >
> >
> > > 3.1 Ensure the author can implement accessible
> > >     authoring practices for the markup
> > >     language(s) supported by the tool.
> >
> >I propose that in any wording change to checkpoint 11.1
> >of the UA Guidelines, that we adopt similar wording, along
> >the lines of:
> >
> >   "Implement known accessibility features of W3C technologies."
> >
> >or in the more general case:
> >
> >   "Implement known accessibility features of supported
> >    technologies."
> >
> >(Perhaps adding a note that this means markup languages, style
> > sheet languages, schema languages, metadata formats, etc.)
> >
> >Thanks Kitch,
> >
> > - Ian
> >
> >Reference document:
> >
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/W
> AI-USERAGENT-19990809/
> >
> >[1]
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0142.html>http://
> lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0142.html
> >[2]
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990818/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI
> -AUTOOLS-19990818/
> >[3]
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990825>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-
> AUTOOLS-19990825
> >--
> >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)
> <http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> >Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814

Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 20:31:52 UTC