W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: HTML lang and xml:lang match

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: team-wcag-act-surveys@w3.org,maryjom@us.ibm.com,wilco.fiers@deque.com

This questionnaire was open from 2020-02-10 to 2020-02-19.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Instructions
  2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
  3. Rule assumptions
  4. Implementation data
  5. Consistent with WCAG
  6. Remaining open issues
  7. Other questions or concerns
  8. Readiness for publishing

1. Instructions

The rule HTML lang and xml:lang match has been updated to address the comments and questions from the previous reviews of the rule. See also the comments and their responses addressed in the updated rule documented in Issue #417. Review the updated rule and complete the questions in this survey. If there are issues with the rule, you may either open an issue in GitHub or provide details in the entry fields for the applicable question.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Instructions
Wilco Fiers
Charu Pandhi
Kathy Eng
Mary Jo Mueller
Jonathan Avila
Jey Nandakumar
Detlev Fischer
Trevor Bostic

2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format

Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 7
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions are documented below.

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Jonathan Avila
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions are documented below. 1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Wilco Fiers Yes Although clarification would be helpful here.
Charu Pandhi I don't know. My questions are documented below. I saw several comments on clarifying assumptions and not clear all have been resolved.
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Jonathan Avila
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes I was initially dithering a bit regarding the note that says iframes are not in scope and are therefore ignored by the rule - since the following explanation emphasises that missing lang in nested browsing contextrs may indeed cause issues. This may be more clearly signposted as a recommendation that does not affect the scope of the rule (or better still, possibly point to a separate rule for iframes?).
Trevor Bostic Yes

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 7
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below.

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Jonathan Avila
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes

5. Consistent with WCAG

Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. 2

Details

Responder Consistent with WCAGComments
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. Looks like the link to HTML specification where it mentions HTML LANG AND XML:LANG MATCH needs to be added to background. https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/dom.html#the-lang-and-xmllang-attributes
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes To Charu's comment. I learned from the previous issue I raised that we should no longer point to the W3C version of the HTML spec, but to the WHATWG version. That correct reference is in there.
Jonathan Avila I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below.
Jey Nandakumar Yes
Detlev Fischer Yes
Trevor Bostic Yes

6. Remaining open issues

Are there any remaining open issues for this rule that were opened prior to this review?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. 2
Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. 1
No, there are no open issues. 4

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Wilco Fiers No, there are no open issues.
Charu Pandhi No, there are no open issues.
Kathy Eng No, there are no open issues.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. <a href refid="https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1172">Issue #1172</a> is still open. Calls out issues with 2 examples and a potential need for an addition to the applicability.
Jonathan Avila
Jey Nandakumar Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below.
Detlev Fischer Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. See comment above.
Trevor Bostic No, there are no open issues.

7. Other questions or concerns

Do you have any further questions or concerns about this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. 1
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 7

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Charu Pandhi No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Kathy Eng No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Jonathan Avila Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. Most browsers don't use XML lang anymore. This test seems antiquated would implementers write an XML checker.
Jey Nandakumar No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Detlev Fischer No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Trevor Bostic No, I have no further questions or concerns.

8. Readiness for publishing

Do you think this rule is ready to be published?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. 5
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. 1
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 2

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Charu Pandhi Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Kathy Eng Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Mary Jo Mueller No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. I think issue 1172 will likely need addressing first.
Jonathan Avila No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below.
Jey Nandakumar Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.
Detlev Fischer Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Possibly make it clearer still that the rule just looks at html lang and does not cover iframe / neted browsing contexts.
Trevor Bostic Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Romain Deltour
  4. Alastair Campbell
  5. Chris Loiselle
  6. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  7. Charles Adams
  8. Daniel Montalvo
  9. Helen Burge
  10. Todd Libby
  11. Thomas Brunet
  12. Catherine Droege
  13. Suji Sreerama
  14. Shane Dittmar
  15. Nayan Padrai
  16. Sage Keriazes

Send an email to all the non-responders.

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.