W3C logo WAI logo

XML Accessibility Guidelines (XAG) Issues Page

Status of this document

This is designed to be an issue tracking list for XML Accessibility Guidelines. At the moment it covers issues raised up until the publication of the 15 Septemeber 2002 Editors' draft. It does not cover most of the issues raised but not yet discussed or resolved in Ian Jacob's response to the September 15 draft, although it does cover issues that were resolved and incorpoorated in the 1 October draft 2002

This document was last updated $Date: 2002/10/14 15:28:19 $

Currently open Issues

Details of issues

0. Editorial Issues
There are continuous suggetions for editorial changes which make no apparent change to the document's requirements, but are more substantive than typographical and grammatical errors..
threads from Closed issues
0.1 June 2002 - Problem statement
The problem that XAG is actually trying to solve. Resolved: The proposal was accepted by the PFWG on 11 September 2002, and the change appeared in the 15 September 2002 draft
0.2 June 2002 - relationship to other guidelines
Based on an earlier suggestion (referenced in this thread) to clarify the relationship between WAI guidelines specifications. Resolved: The proposal was accepted by the PFWG on 11 September 2002, and the change appeared in the 15 September 2002 draft
0.3 September 2002 - various commments
The comments which were editorial, among the many comments in Ian Jacob's response to the September 15 draft. Resolved: editorial changes were incorporated in the 1 October 2002 draft.
1. Closed Definition of accessibility
This is noted at a couple of places in the 17 June 2002 draft - at the beginning and in an appendix. It was raised at the April 2002 face to face meeting. There are other discussions and suggestions for definitions.
Threads
June 2002 - definition of disability, etc
Thread suggesting use of the WHO organisation's terminology, referring to an earlier thread.
June 2002 - definition of media equivalent
June 2002 - definition of real-time process
June 2002 - definition: time-dependent presentation
August 2002 - use WAI glossary
Proposal to shift definitions discussion to WAI glossary and not track them as XAG issues. Resolved: The proposal was accepted by the PFWG on 11 September 2002, and the change appeared in the 15 September 2002 draft.
2. Scope of applicability
This was raised a long time ago. It was discussed at the April 2002 meeting, where it was suggested that XAG could be applied to more than just XML languages, and to all XML languages. It is noted in the 17 June 2002 draft.
Threads
June 2002 - applicability
No apparent resolution
3. Closed Merge checkpoints 1.1 and 1.2 (June 2002 draft)
Checkpoints 1.1 and 1.2 (as numbered in the June 2002 draft) seem to overlap. Should they be merged?
Threads
June 2002 - XAG clarification
Question arising from review. Resolved: The proposal was rejected by the PFWG on September 11 2002
4. What are "existing accessible modules"
Checkpoint 1.3 (as numbered in June 2002 draft) requires that existing accessible modules be used, but does not say what those are or how to determine if there is one.
Threads
June 2002 - what are accessible modules
Arising from review
August 2002 - automatic testing 1.3
Arising from review for automatic testability, with some suggestion for how to create such modules
5. Closed Merge checkpoints 2.9 and 1.3
Checkpoints 2.9 and 1.3 (as numbered in the June 2002 draft) seem to cover very similar ground. Two people have suggested that they might be redundant and could be merged.
Threads
June 2002 - 2.9 can modules be re-used except as intended
Question arising from review. One follow up agreeing they could be merged. Resolved: The proposal was accepted by the PFWG on 11 September 2002, and the change appeared in the 15 September 2002 draft.
6. Merge checkpoints 1.3 and 4.2 (June 2002 draft)
Checkpoints 4.2 and 1.3 seem to cover the same requirements. Should they be merged? Note: Checkpoint 1.3 has been merged into checkpoint 2.9 in the 15 September 2002 draft.
Threads
June 2002 - difference between 4.2 and 1.3
Question arising from review. One response disagreeing.
7. Merge checkpoints 4.10 and 3.2
Checkpoint 3.2 says to do something, checkpoint 4.10 says to document it. Could these be merged?
Threads
June 2002 - difference between 4.10 and 3.2
Followed up in a second thread expanding on the question and a third thread suggesting not to merge them
8. Using Xlink
Should specifications use Xlink directly, or does something like the Hlink proposal from HTML qualify as using Xlink? Is Xlink usable or too unwieldy?
Threads
September 2002 - XAG 2.3 and Xlink
Xlink seems unwieldy. Is there a publicly available accessibility review of Xlink?
September 2001 - Re Ian's comments on XAG
Dave pawson suggests in passing that Xlink might be more complicated than useful, with a suggestion for how to use Xlink in another email from the thread
9. Checkpoint 2.9 (October 3 draft) is a Technique, or needs expansion
In order to satisfy checkpoint 2.9 developers should know which modules they should re-use. However, this may not be a checkpoint-level requirement, but merely a technique for meeting other checkpoints.
10. Drop requirements for "search" from checkpoint 3.2 (October 3 draft)
Is search support related to the XML applicatgion, or is it a generic function of tools?
Threads
October 2002 - drop search from checkpoint 3.2

Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> - W3C Staff Contact

Copyright   2002 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document useand software licensingrules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.