This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
[[[ About: General SpecGL does not mention the need to consider accessibility while writing a spec, particularly the need for XML-based vocabularies to conform to something like the XML Accessibility Guidelines. Request: an additional requirement. For example, consider adding a Requirement to 1.1: [proposal]Address Accessibility What does it mean? Accessibility must be encouraged by the Working Group. The benefit of addressing accessibility is the increased likelihood that both user agents and authoring tools will implement the accessibility features of the specification from the beginning. Otherwise, it make take several revisions before software addresses accessibility features, leaving people with disabilities behind. Formalizing the position of the Working Group by a clear defined section and prose removes ambiguities for the specification users about the possibility of addressing accessibility. Refer to the XML Accessibility Guidelines. [/proposal] ]]]
[[[ Note: There are issues with this proposal and this is a request to start a dialog to help us figure out exactly what should be required. For example, XAG is a good place to begin discussion, but because we are unsure of its future we are unsure about recommending its inclusion. We also think the issues raised/possible opportunities to address with SpecGL might go beyond what is currently in the XAG. Therefore, we (the WAI CG or at a minimum the PFWG) request the opportunity to discuss this issue with you. ]]]
http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-qa-minutes karl: getting onto bug 1087 ... the WAI CG would like us to asks to address accessibility in specifications ... we already had that comment 2 years ago ... and we said it was out of scope of our document Mark: as a general rule, I don't think we address content Lynne: her argument was that to write a good spec, you need to address accessibility ... but I agress with Karl that this out of scope dom: what about putting this in an informal section? mark: but then we'll get flamed for not mentioning this or that dom: we can always put an appropriate disclaimer karl: I wouldn't put it in a GP, since that would be untestable lynne: what about putting in the scope section? mark: but it's clearly out of scope tim: but accessibility is important to have in mind when designing a spec karl: but the list can get on for ever ... it is indeed important to address a wide variety of topics ... but they're not related to what we try to do in SpecGL tim: what about putting somewhere in an informative part? mark: there are 2 levels to this ... we don't want to require specs to address security, accessibility ... although I see no problem in saying that specs should be accessible karl: but what the WAI CG asked was about topics addressed in the spec ... I like Lynne's proposal to put that in the scope section dom: I like the idea ... I think we should take the opportunity to say also that it's a good idea to address topics like "accessibility, device independent, i18n, security", etc ACTION: Lynne to propose an addition to scope wrt accessibility, etc being out of scope but worth having in mind by 2005-02-16
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0028.html LR has proposed wording for the Scope of QA SpecGL at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0020 There being no objections, it was adopted without dissention. This item is now resolved.
After further discussion with WAI CG, we decided to integrated more details in the new "Beyond conformance" section about accessibility, and possibly other horizontal domains considerations.
Resolution: The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG that SpecGL should mention the need to consider accessibility while writing a specification, but disagree with making this a normative requirement in SpecGL, since its scope in this version of the document is mainly focused on conformance related items and that QA WG participants don't have enough background and experience to add further requirements on this topic at this stage of development. In addition to accessibility, the QA Working Group has decided that SpecGL should mention the need to additionally consider internationalization and device independence while writing a specification. Accordingly, a new Section 3.3 (Accessibility, Internationalization, and Device Independence Considerations) has been created in the revised SpecGL draft. Note that there is a reference to the XML Accessibility Guidelines within Section 3.3.
setting version to LC in case of future use