Responses to HTML WG issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

Steven,

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed the
non-editorial last call issues (447, 448) you raised;
please refer to the email source of the issues [0].

The complete second last call issues list [1] is available
online. The results of the UAWG's resolutions have been
incorporated into the 9 March 2001 draft of the document [2].

  NOTE: The issue titles relate to the 23 October 2000 last call
  draft [4]. In my comments below, checkpoint numbers, etc. have
  been updated to correspond to the 9 March 2001 draft.

Please indicate before 27 March whether you are satisfied with
the UAWG's resolutions, whether you wish the WG to carry forward
any objections to the Director as the document advances, or
whether you require further clarification or comment. If you do
not think you respond before 27 March, please let me know.  The
Director will appreciate a response whether you agree with the
disposition of comments or not. More information about the
process we are following is available in section 5.5.2 of the W3C
Process Document [3].

On behalf of the UAWG, thank you for your review and comments,

 - Ian

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0341
[1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/

===============================================
The UAWG agreed with you:
===============================================

------------------
#447: Conformance: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration
requirements
  
  You wrote: "The document continually referred to prefs that should
  be set, but state in the beginning that the application should work
  on default settings -- but what disability should the default be
  defaulted to? Which doesn't seem correct does it? So, the default
  install is what then?"

  Comment: The confusing statement to which you referred has
  been deleted from the document.

===============================================
The UAWG answered your question:
===============================================

---------------------
#448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write?

  Comment: After consultation with the DOM Working Group, there are
  only limited write facilities available through the CSS module of
  the W3C Document Object Model (DOM) Level 2 Style Specification.
  Therefore, the Working Group has decided that no clarification
  is necessary; the requirement is to conform to that specification.

  Please note that the priority of what is now checkpoint 6.9 has
  been raised from P3 to P2.

===============================================
On your general impression re: conformance:
===============================================

  You wrote: "This document is in general too vague in the
  requirements for the different user agents (browser, plug-ins,
  accessibility application, content provider). In addition, there is
  no clear indication as which "user agent" is responsibility for
  satisfying each requirement"

  Comment: The conformance requirements of the document have been
  clarified since the second last call draft. However, even in the 23
  October 2000 draft, the document did not assign different
  requirements to different types of user agents (browser, plug-ins,
  accessibility application, content provider). The document sets
  forth a set of requirements that any chosen combination of software
  components must meet in order to conform. This may or may not
  include assistive technologies, according to the wishes of the
  claimant. However, it is true that the requirements themselves are
  not geared towards assistive technologies.

  In summary: I hope our revised document communicates this model
  more clearly.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 22:37:30 UTC