accessibility review and 4.0 release

I am going to address concretes first.  This is out of order
from your message.

DSR>
>
> There are 2 major issues I would like help with:
>
>   a) whether the DTD should include/reserve longdesc for IMG
>      as a precaution for dealing with transition issues
>

We can come to a consensus on the accessibility assessment of
this question faster with a little more perspective from the HTML
working group.  Does the HTML working group see IMG being
obsoleted in favor of OBJECT for everyone (not just the
politically correct) as part of planned future migration?  Does
the HTML draft about to come out contain a LONGDESC provision,
and does it say whether the content pointed to by the LONGDESC
value (URI) is to be applied inline or encapsulated behind a
link?

>   b) whether the latest HTML 4.0 proposals provide a
>      sufficiently rich basis for rendering tables to speech
>
> A new public version of 4.0 is expected this coming week.
> This will include significant changes to the section dealing
> with tables.
>

Clearly we need to see the new version to answer b).  The question
of "when" leads me to the more general point:

DSR>
>
> As an editor of the HTML 4.0 spec, I would like to get the
> input of accessibility experts and content providers as soon
> as possible since the window on changes to 4.0 will close within
> days not months.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am not sure that our constituents in the disability community
would regard this as a reasonable effort to accomodate by the
W3C.  I am not in a position to offer concrete schedule proposals
because I believe that this question of terms of reference for
accessibility review prior to 4.0 going final is an open issue
"above our pay grade" within the W3C as we speak.  Jim Miller
can correct me if I'm wrong.

I just work here.

--
Al Gilman

Received on Saturday, 13 September 1997 11:10:23 UTC