Re: [office-accessibility] ODF TC accessibility summary from meetingearlier today

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

Bruce D'Arcus wrote On 06/15/06 14:23,:
> 
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 5:25 AM, Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - 
> Hamburg wrote:
> 
>> 1. The OpenDocument specification in section 9.3 states
>>
>> "In general, an application must not render more than one of the content
>> elements contained in a frame."
>>
>> This means, an application would either render the image, or the 
>> caption, but
>> it would not render both.
> 
> 
> It sounds to me like this definition is flawed. There's no reason in 
> fixing the caption issue (e.g. that there effectively is no such thing) 
> we can't edit that too?

Of course we may edit this if required. But se also my other mail.
> 
>> 2. The caption element does not contain any information where the caption
>> will be rendered (above the frame, or below, which width will it have, 
>> etc.). Actually, this would also be the case if the caption element 
>> would be contained in the image element.
> 
> 
> Would be nice if it could be globally configured (with a style?), but 
> also locally overridden.

But wouldn't that mean that we add an entirely new feature? From my 
understanding the issue that we have to resolve is not that there are no 
captions at all, but only that the link between the caption and the graphical 
objects is missing. So, it of course may be reasoanvle to think of a new 
caption feature, but from my understanding, this actually is more than is 
requested.
>>
>> I further would suggest to name the attribute "described-by", because 
>> this is more in line with the other element/attribute names of ODF 
>> (the only exception are those the directly include from other 
>> specifications).
> 
> 
> But this still does nothing to address my concerns about a) weak 
> semantics, b) overlap with metadata.

I do understand your concerns. But we would like to solve the accessibility 
issue for ODF 1.1, while meta data is for 1.2. So, I think we have to accept 
that we specify something now that we maybe, or maybe not, would specify in a 
different way in a year or so.

Michael