[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-accessibility] Re: [office] OpenDocument v1.1 CommitteeDraft 1
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. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]