OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

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

  • 1.  Re: [office] OpenDocument v1.1 Committee Draft 1

    Posted 07-21-2006 03:41 
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->


















    office message
    







    [Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]
    


    







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








    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]


Related Content