Re: [draft] answers to multiple WAI CG comments re: SpecGL

Le vendredi 22 avril 2005 à 09:16 -0400, Tim Boland a écrit :
> Original Comment (Issue 1082):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>
> The QA Working Group agrees? with the WAI CG (or indicates that the WAI 
> CG's interpretation
> as stated in Original Comment for Issue 1082 is correct?)

I think the latter is correct .

> Original Comment (Issue 1087):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

I think we need to make clearer the fact that we disagreed with making
normative requirements on this subject. So I propose to add below:

> The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG that SpecGL 
> should mention the
> need to consider accessibility while writing a specification

... but disagree with making this a normative requirement in SpecGL,
since its scope in this version of the document is mainly focused on
conformance related items and that QA WG participants don't have enough
background and experience to add further requirements on this topic at
this stage of development.

In addition to accessibility, 
> The QA 
> Working Group
> further desires

rather than "desires", I'd put "has decided"

>  that SpecGL should mention the need to additionally consider
> internationalization and device independence while writing a 
> specification.  Accordingly,
> a new Section 3.3 ("Accessibility, Internationalization, and Device 
> Independence Considerations")
> has been created in the revised SpecGL draft:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#address-other-topics
> 
> Note that there is a reference to the XML Accessibility Guidelines within 
> Section 3.3.

> Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1091 (Formal Language vs. Prose: Ambiguity)
> Original Comment (Issue 1091):
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1091#c1
> 
> (NOTE: This bug is marked as a duplicate of bug 1049.  Should I just 
> reference the response to
> bug 1049, or point to Good Practice 11 in revised SpecGL:
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#formal-language-gp

I think doing a personalized response with a link to new GP 11 would be
better.

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org