WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group
Chair: Jutta Treviranus, jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca
Date: Wednesday 28 April 1999
Time: 3.30pm - 4.30pm Boston time (1930Z - 2030Z)
Phone number: Tobin Bridge, +1 (617) 252 7000
The latest working group draft is http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990421.
Interest Group Review (one message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0142)
From the previous meeting:
Raised by Bruce Roberts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0023
Raised by Charles McCathieNevile: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0045
and in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0124
and in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0244
Raised by William Loughborough: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0008
Review of Priority definitions - Proposed by Kynn Bartlett: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0101
All: Happy to keep using ensure. Other grammar stuff is left to editors to deal with.
JR: I like preserve instead of never remove
Resolved: Preserve instead of never remove
JR, JA agree about standards
GR When I talk to people the distinction can be treated in the glossary. If we get into the fine details too far we are muddying the waters
WL: That's too bad - there is a thing about using the word standard.
JT: Standards are good. That's all that we say, not a "W3C standard"
JR: Should we change W3C Specifications to "Recommendations"
Resolved: W3C specifications to be called recommendations. Standards in general sense to be called standards.
GR: References might want a pointer to W3C space which explains the termimnology used.
So Resolved
2.1.1
JT Priority 2 to begin can be addressed when we deal with that
JR This checkpoint fits here logically whatever the priority
CMN, WL agree
JT This is a building block.
2.3
WL: Can't check it is all there.
All: agreed
JT 2.3.2... clarify example.
Resolved: "LABEL, FIELDSET, LEGEND for form controls"
2.3.3
CMN No. Tools can provide clip art and alt content
JA Where tools use things with multiple prpose there is an issue here.
CMN We should note that case in our discussion of this checkpoint
WL It isn't a drop-dead sticking point - it is good to provide it still, and note it if it is unclear.
Resolved: Note the issue in techniques for this checkpoint. Point out that default may not be appropriate in all cases - check with author
2.3.4
CMN It means the Tool needs to manage the relationship, not the file format
JT Do we need to make this clearer?
Resolved: Explain this in techniques
Action JR: Write technique for 2.3.4
JT 2.3.5 Don't understand the objection
WL This is just an example
All: Agreed
JT 2.5
CMN: When we talk about markup we include content, structure, etc.
JT The text which is an attribute could be seen as not part of markup
CMN I don't see how
GR Nor me
Resolved: We think attributes and their values are part of the structure and of the content. Clarify in definition
2.5
JT His rant is one of the things we wanted to allow
JR I don't think this needs to be made explicit.
WL Agree
JR Tool can do that and ask the author - it is an implementation thing
CMN: Do we want to have it as a requirement - P2 or P3
JR I would love it...
CMN I suggest we put it in as a P3
JR I don't like this as a checkpoint. It is a power user feature.
CMN I think this is a good feature as a P3 feature
Resolved: Add 2.6.5 Allow the author to perform tag transformations P3 for example B -> STRONG, tables to lists, Fonts into Heading levels
2.7.3
JT This is a technique we could use
GR I don't like that
CMN I'm against showing how to do bad things
JR When they put the rest of stuff in do they say 'don't so this'?
JA Sometimes they show invalid markup...
CMN As a general principle it is a bad idea.
So Resolved
3.1
CMN Don't think we need to remove 'ensure'. Publishing is fine
JT publishing is good
Resolved: leave as is
3.2.1 The examples given are text brackets.
CMN The suggestion is that text brackets just means words.
JT Should we put examples in? The problem is that there are little images used in some tools to mark tags. We are just saying make sure they are readable
Resolved: Clarify with examples.
appendix - sample implementations
This is already resolved. See changes document.
Definitions:
CMN Propose we defer this to WG discussion of definitions.
General:
CMN These are to do with scripts used to generate the document. We can name as many elements as we want for future reference, but we should clean up scripts for giving attributes inside quotes.
GR Wanted to make 2.7.2 and make it first, as P1, make 2.7.1 a P2
CMN The problem hinges on definition of priorities - propose we postpone until Kynn and Bruce are in group.
Postponed until next week
Deferred
CMN Our conformance to other docs statement doesn't meet requirements for conformance to WCAG.
Resolved: Adopt propose wording
Resolved: Adopt wording for abstract from CMN proposal of 8 April
JR We should keep enabling seperate from authoring.
JR I like the term authoring interface instead of authoring tool interface
GR: That's slick
Resolved: Adopt wording from WCAG for conformance statement.
Deferred
WL We should clarify our use of the word 'content'
So Resolved. Note: Confusion about whether content includes structure and format
Last Modified $Date: 2000/11/08 08:11:51 $ by Charles McCathieNevile