Edit comment LC-1172 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-748 Next: LC-809

Comment LC-1172: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> on behalf of Lowney Access Research, LLC; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
4.1.1 requires that Web content to be parsed unambiguously. Does this require the formal specifications be open, so that new user agents can parse the content? For example, suppose the baseline specifies just one Web browser, that implements rules for applying defaults to resolve any potential ambiguities in HTML that might be interpreted differently if another browser were used; is the HTML parsable unambiguously within the scope of the baseline? As another example, suppose a Web uses a proprietary data format that only a single plug-in can render; does it matter if it's parsable unambiguously if there is only one renderer?

Proposed Change:

Insert the phrase ", using publicly available specifications", to read "Web units or authored components can be parsed unambiguously, using publicly available specifications, and the relationships in the resulting data structure are also unambiguous.; Related issues: 910
(space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMC] Propose to not accept with fellowing response. To parse the web content unambiguously, it is not necessary to require a public specification. Some web content is proprietary and requires proprietary technology and/or proprietary user agents. This is commonly found in corporate or governmental environments. If proprietary data format is used and only a single plug-in can render the format, the content still needs to be parsed unambiguously in order for plug-in to render the content properly. The only difference is that the way to parse the content is not public information. Additionally, baseline does not include web browser, or any other user agents. Html, on the other hand, can be part of the baseline. If so, the html needs to be parse unambiguously. Discussed in the 29 March 2007 telecon: Resolution: close 4.1.1 issues with proposal as amended http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/03/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html {accept} SEE ACTIONS FOR LC-910 Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html; Resolution: To make this requirement easier to understand, we have reworded SC 4.1.1 to clarify that it must be possible to parse content without the need for user agent repair. The revised SC reads as follows: 4.1.1 Content implemented using markup languages has elements with complete start and end tags, except as allowed by their specifications, and are nested according to their specifications. (Level A) Note: Start and end tags that are missing a critical character in their formation, such as a closing angle bracket or a mismatched attribute value quote are not complete.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)