Re: [office-accessibility] Re: [office] OpenDocument v1.1 CommitteeDraft 1

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Robert,

that's what the A11y SC recommended in its last meeting, too, and I believe 
is addressed by ODF 1.1 Draft 7 I have uploaded a few minutes ago.

Michael

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> I took another look at the Appendix E, and I'm starting to have some 
> doubts.
> 
> If the intent is to expand on this, and make a more comprehensive 
> statement on accessibility guidelines, then having it be a separate 
> document would give us more flexibility.  It could be revised and 
> reviewed on an independent cycle.  Since it would likely not contain 
> normative standards content (same as Appendix E), it may have more 
> avenues for release, such as a committee document, or something promoted 
> on XML.org or via the Adoption TC.
> 
> Having it be separate also keeps the size of the ODC standard a little 
> shorter, so there is less work for downstream reviewers and translators.
> 
> So, I love the content, but I'd recommend keeping it in a separate 
> document.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 07/20/2006 05:32:14 AM:
> 
> 
>  > Regarding the appendix and the options itself:
>  >
>  > The current Appendix E includes exactly those accessibility guidelines
>  > that were already included in the proposals contained in the
>  > accessibility report. More precisely, for some of the extensions
>  > suggested by the a11y report, the text proposals that are contained in
>  > the report were splitted: The text that describes the semantic of new
>  > elements and attributes was added to the normative part of the
>  > specification, while guidelines regarding their implementation and use
>  > were move to the appendix.
>  >
>  > We now have (at least) the following options:
>  >
>  > a) We keep ODF 1.1 as it is, and the SC works on a companion document
>  > that the TC approves independently.
>  > b) We replace the content of Appendix E with a reference to the TC or SC
>  > web pages (since the companion document is not existing so far,
>  > referencing it seems not be an option to me).
>  > c) We delay ODF 1.1 and replace Appendix E with the accessibility
>  > guidelines that are a work in progress in the A11y SC. This delay could
>  > be compensated by setting an OASIS standard vote for OpenDocument 1.1
>  > aside for this year, which saves about one and a half months. Since
>  > accessibility is the main reason for OpenDocument v1.1, it would be
>  > interesting to know the A11y SC's opinion on this.
>  >