Formal responses to issues raised by SVG WG during last call of UAAG 1.0

Dear SVG Working Group,

On behalf of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working
Group, thank you again for your detailed review [1] of the 9
April 2001 last call draft of UAAG 1.0 [2]. Below I have included
a URL [3] to the UAWG's formal responses to your comments. The
UAWG has incorporated some of your suggested changes in the 14
July 2001 draft [4]; other changes are inspired by your comments
even if you did not request these changes directly. The list of
changes [5] to the document since the 9 April draft is available
on the Web.

The UAWG has yet to resolve one issue you raised, which we have
logged as issue 516 [6]. Our other responses are lengthy, so we
decided to send them to you sooner rather than later, while we
resolve the final issue. We expect to reach a resolution by our
19 July teleconference, at which point we will update our formal
replies and send you a response.

The UAWG would like feedback in particular on what we think is a
resolution to issue 517 [8]: whether checkpoint 4.4 applies to
nested time containers. The UAWG believes that this issue is
resolved by clarifying that all of our media object requirements
(related to audio, video, animation, and images) refer to "atomic"
objects that may be rendered independently (by format specification).
If a piece of content is structured (nested) in such a way that it does
not make sense (by format specification) to play it independently, then
we do not require the user agent to provide the control in question.
We have tried to clarify this in the 14 July draft and would like
to know whether this satisfies your expectations.

Please indicate by 31 July whether you are satisfied with the
UAWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
misunderstanding, whether you would like clarification of some of
our responses, or whether you wish to register an objection.  If
you do not think you can respond before 31 July, please let me
know.  The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
with the resolutions or not.

Please send your replies to, whose archives [7]
are public.

Below you will find more information follows about the process we
are following to resolve these issues, including three formal

Note: Where checkpoint numbers have changed, I indicate the
mapping to the 14 July 2001 draft.

Thank you,

 _ Ian


1) Process requirement to address last call issues

Per section 5.2.3 [9] of the 8 February 2001 Process Document, in
order for the UAAG 1.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
Document [10] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal

  "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
  addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
  of having sent a response to the party who raised the
  issue. This response should include the Working Group's
  resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
  reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
  initial objection."

If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
Working Group may prepare its substantive response.

If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
with the relevant deliverables. 

There are currently three objections that the UAWG will carry
forward with the document in a request to advance to Candidate

 1) Two concern the priority of checkpoint 12.1, one that the
 priority should be lowered, the other that the priority should
 be raised. There are additional supporters of each position.

   Phill Jenkins (IBM):
   Gregory Rosmaita:

 2) One concerns the fact that any conforming user agent
    must implement the DOM 2 Core.

   Jonny Axelson (Opera Software):


Ian Jacobs (
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Received on Saturday, 14 July 2001 14:30:45 UTC