ERT WG

Comments on WCAG 2.0 by CarlosI

SAZ: believe WCAG WG have completed comments managment

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

SAZ: focus on follow-up of CI's comments if necessary
... there's a diff version linked on a top, a little more verbose but better to follow changes
... WCAG 2 is proceeding to CR
... usually not substantial changes at CR
... metadata and definition of web page may need more work
... are people happy with the new version in general?

CI: concerns about definition of web page and validation procedures

SAZ: is an important question
... try to report as soon as possible

WCAG defintion of "Web Page"

SAZ: recap: we identified some use cases were URI is not sufficient to identify a resource
... we can record what is received from the server but not what get the user at the end
... specially in cases when several resources are rendered together
... is a problem from the user perspective, not a technicall one
... eg. web apps and frames
... looked at the DOM recording
... DOM classes and/or DOM serialization

CV: the same discussion comes up many times internally
... don't convice WCAG have all we need
... about this

SAZ: looks related with what CI have said just before
... maybe this work is not EARL's task
... we're not restricted to EARL nor to have to do it now
... but may need an idea on how to solve it

CV: user's view depends on UAs

SAZ: we have focused on content
... with an heuristic approach
... is something we at EARL haven't addressed yet or an WCAG issue?

<scribe> ACTION: CI and CV to elaborate on the mailing list about web page definition, conformance and evaluation issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-er-minutes.html#action01]

CI: think is not related to EARL, more related to differences between real current evaluation process and WCAG web page definition
... the only thing that may be included in EARL could be some kind of states recording or tracking

Does Content-in-RDF need updating?

SAZ: comment about the draft on this thread
... believe there's agreement on some comments
... others may need further discussion

<shadi> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2008Feb/0013.html

SAZ: comments from CI that opened the thread
... let's go one by one
... first one is a long discussion about character encodings

JK: looks like we have agreement on a Content property for character encoding
... a new scenario
... the character string is created on memory
... you create a sequence of characters
... don't have to care about encoding right now
... you are able to create TextContent from this without any problem
... you may want to create also a base64 representation
... then the result is the byte sequence

CV: what if the declared content enconding is wrong

SAZ: JK mentioned it's a general issue, not specific of Content specification
... is this a proposal of new scenario?

JK: you record the character encoding at the HTTP headers level

CV: what if you get it from the content metadata at the document itself?

SAZ: the more important one is the character encoding you use
... CV, why don't write down your scenario?

JK: next comment is about using the specification terminology
... don't mind changing

<shadi> ACTION: CV send character encoding scenario to the mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/12-er-minutes.html#action02]

RESOLUTION: adjust terminology to the XML specification

JK: next one is about a HTML content to specify the type but no additional properties

SAZ: don't look like a priority

CI: it's useful to allow easy distinction

SAZ: you have this information on headers
... don't want to repeat everything
... let's continue next week