Re: Wording of Notes on 4.1.1 Parsing for WCAG 2.0 & 2.1

> it would be more meaningful if the actual languages that are used and parsed within a HTML document are mentioned (i.e. ARIA, SVG, Mathml)

During the discussion we were trying to think wider, e.g. epub.

SVG came up but we weren’t sure whether error-handling was defined by the spec like HTML, so didn’t want to name it as an example. HTML and XML have clear (but different) error-handling so we were happy to name those.

At this stage, if it’s a big problem then we can remove the mention of XML, but if it is a “can tolerate” thing that can be explained in the understanding doc, we’ll do that.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 09:15
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Wording of Notes on 4.1.1 Parsing for WCAG 2.0 & 2.1
Hi Alistair,

> In the meeting notes linked there was quite a bit of discussion about whether to just state HTML only, or include other examples.

Yes, I read those. I just thought the mention of XML was left field and a bit odd. As XML is not a UI language in web browsers, as far as I am aware, it gets converted into HTML by browsers using the browsers XML parser.

> XML was thought to be a safe example to add because (as you pointed out) everyone gets the error message, rather than the AT interrogating the source code instead of the browser.

agreed, it still seems odd, I think I understand what the WG are trying to get at. but think it would be more meaningful if the actual languages that are used and parsed within a HTML document are mentioned (i.e. ARIA, SVG, Mathml)



On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 00:33, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi Steve,

(Separating this thread with adjusted subject line.)

In the meeting notes linked there was quite a bit of discussion about whether to just state HTML only, or include other examples.

XML was thought to be a safe example to add because (as you pointed out) everyone gets the error message, rather than the AT interrogating the source code instead of the browser.

I appreciate it works differently from HTML, and the rest of the note is focused on the HTML aspect.

We can outline different scenarios in the understanding doc, but we were trying (and somewhat failing) to keep it concise.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Steve Faulkner
Hi, I am unclear as to why XML is included?


 <p class="note">This Success Criterion should be considered as always satisfied for any content using HTML or XML.</p>
I don't believe it is the case that XHTML served as application/XML to a browser, for example test.xhtml:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
  <title>Title of document</title>
</head>
<body>

  some content here...
 <b><i>Some text</b></i>
 <p>This is a paragraph
<p>This is another paragraph
</body>
</html>

is parsed by and coerced into a DOM using the HTML parser.

For example when opened in Chrome I get the following error

This page contains the following errors:
error on line 10 at column 21: Opening and ending tag mismatch: i line 10 and b
Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.
some content here...


On 5/2/23, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends Monday May 8th at 1pm Boston time.
>
>
>
> We previously agreed to add notes to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 for SC 4.1.1 Parsing:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2023JanMar/0426.html
>
>
>
> We followed up with a meeting where we agreed the wording:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2023/04/04-ag-minutes#item04
>
>
>
> This CFC is to agree the wording, which is available in this PR:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3152/files
>
>
>
> The next step (in a future CFC) will be to agree the re-publishing of WCAG
> 2.1 & 2.0 in order that these notes (and all the previous errata) are
> visible in the latest versions of each.
>
>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being
> able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC
> deadline.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/><http://www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2023 09:30:10 UTC