- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:16:17 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I have a problem with this answer for now and with Dom's comments. Could you redraft it Tim? Le 05-04-22 à 09:16, Tim Boland a écrit : > > Per my assignment, following are draft QAWG responses to WAI CG > re: issues 1082, 1083, 1085, 1087, 1089, 1090, 1091. Note that > since 1091 is marked as a duplicate of 1049, I wasn't sure how to > handle this one.. > > Best wishes > Tim Boland NIST > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------- > > > Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1082 (extensibility in the case > of WCAG2.0) > > > > Original Comment (Issue 1082): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html > > Additional Comment #1: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1082#c1 > > > 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?) > that WCAG2.0 guidelines/success criteria can be extended, because > the Guidelines > are deliberately generic; thus they can be applied and adapted > (extended) by > different policy makers, and extensibility is appropriate. The QA > Working Group > suggests that WCAG2.0 documentation indicate that it is allowable > to add additional > guidelines/criteria to those already in WCAG2.0 for the previously- > stated purpose, > but that such additions should be in the style of existing WCAG2.0 > success > criteria/guidelines if possible. Furthermore, the QA Working Group > suggests that > the mechanism for such extensibility should be defined formally in > the > WCAG2.0 documentation. The QA Working Group believes that such > extensibility > considerations as mentioned previously are consistent with "2.4.3 > Extensibility and > Extensions in the revised SpecGL draft: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#extensions > > > The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks > the WAI CG for any input > into this proposed resolution. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1083 (Deprecation in case of > WCAG1.0/WCAG2.0) > > > > > Original Comment (Issue 1083): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html > > Additional Comment #1: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1083#c1 > > > The QA Working Group acknowledges that the WCAG1.0 and WCAG2.0 > documents are very different > in style, and that mapping between WCAG1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG2.0 > in such a way that would > allow such Checkpoints to be marked as decprecated in WCAG2.0 would > be indirect and difficult. > However, the QA Working Group believes that the creation of such a > mapping is important, > because specification users need to know the evolution of > particular features from WCAG1.0 to > WCAG2.0. The QA Working Group suggests that an appendix be created > in WCAG2.0 with the mapping > desired by the QA Working Group (indicated previously), showing and > explaining the evolution of particular features from WCAG1.0 to > WCAG2.0; in such an appendix, > the QA Working Group suggests to use whatever format is most > appropriate in meeting the objectives > of the appendix. The QA Working Group believes that such an > approach mentioned previously would > be consistent with "2.4.4 Deprecation" in the revised SpecGL draft: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#deprecation > > > The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks > the WAI CG for any input > into this proposed resolution. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1085 (detailed table of contents) > > > > Original Comment (Issue 1085): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html > > Additional Comment #1: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c1 > > Additional Comment #2: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c2 > > > The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI CG that the table of > contents should go into deeper levels > to to be able to find requirements and good practices more easily > and quickly. Note that in > the revised SpecGL draft: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/ > > the List of Requirements and List of Good Practices are linked > directly > after the Table of Contents, and are also numbered consecutively > for easier reference. > > The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks > the WAI CG for any input > into this proposed resolution. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1087 (address Accessibility in > Requirements) > > > > Original Comment (Issue 1087): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html > > Additional Comment #1: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c1 > > Additional Comment #2: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c2 > > 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. The > QA Working Group > further desires 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. > > The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks > the WAI CG for any input > into this proposed resolution. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1089 (Need Clarifications for > 2.2 Requirement A) > > > > Original Comment (Issue 1089): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html > > Additional Comment #1: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c1 > > Additional Comment #2: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c2 > > > The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG to > change the Requirement > "Identify who or what will implement the specification" to > "Identify who and/or what > will implement the specification". Accordingly, Requirement 03 > (old 2.2A) in the > revised SpecGL Draft: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#implement-principle > > has been changed as indicated? (NOTE: THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE YET - > SENT SEPARATE MESSAGE ON > THIS!) > > > The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks > the WAI CG for any input > into this proposed resolution. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1090 (Managing Variability in > WCAG2.0) > > > > Original Comment (Issue 1090): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html > > Additional Comment #1: > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1090#c1 > > > The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI WG that the approach taken by > the WAI CG in managing variability through conformance to three > levels of > success criteria (as indicated in Original Comment) is correct in > interpretation. The QA Working Group believes that this approach is > consistent with "2.4 Managing Variability" of revised SpecGL draft: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#variability > > The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks > the WAI CG for any input > into this proposed resolution. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > Additional Comment #1: > > 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 > > Not sure which approach is best?) > > Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:16:56 UTC