Re: [office] Re: [office-accessibility] Re: [office] OpenDocument v1.1Committee Draft 1

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Actually, I am proposing a removing
the content of Appendix E altogether and have it be its own document, so
it is all in one place, a coherent whole.   If we have it in two places,
what do we do when the content overlaps?  It can get very confusing.

Also, although Appendix E is said to
be "non-normative", it has language like "shall", "should"
and "must" which contradicts that label.  So at the very
least I think we want to clean that up.

In the end we want a comprehensive specification
containing normative language for what ODF requires.  And we want
a coherent implementors guide which may cover accessibility, but may also
grow to offer guidelines on things like Bidi and other specialized topics.
 Since the normative content defines the standard, and therefore has
greater process requirements in OASIS and ISO, I suggest we may want to
keep that specification document as small as possible and put non-normative
topics like this one into its own document.

Does this make sense?  What does
the accessibility SC think?  Again, I absolutely want that content
to get out to readers, but I think we have more flexibility if we keep
it together in a single document, aside from the specification.


-Rob
 

Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 07/21/2006 08:46:27
AM:

> 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
>