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

Yeah, I am not going to kick up a fuss about the wording, as in I can live
with it, can live without it as well ;-)

On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 13:33, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:

> > During the discussion we were trying to think wider, e.g. epub.
>
>
>
> Yes, EPUB is heavily dependent on XML but specifically naming it here
> might not make sense. It’s not exclusive that you use XML under the hood,
> even if XHTML and SVG are the two main content document formats.
>
>
>
> As noted in the calls, XML’s draconian error handling already makes most
> issues captured by 4.1.1 general usability issues for everyone in EPUB.
> Those it doesn’t are going to be captured by other SC.
>
>
>
> Would saying “XML-based grammars” be clearer, perhaps, as XML itself is a
> technology not a format?
>
>
>
> I’m fine either way, though, so +1 from me whatever you decide on.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 3, 2023 5:29 AM
> *To:* Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.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
>
>
>
> > 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>
> 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> 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>
> >
> >
>
>