OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

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.


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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]