MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
office message
[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]