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
Mary, Peter, all,
first of all: independent of what the A11y SC or the TC considers to be
the best solution, we need a decission very soon. Our current schedule
for OpenDocument 1.1 is set up in a way that we may have an OASIS
Standard voting in November provided of cause that the public review is
sucessfull. If we want to keep this option, then the public review must
start on the 2nd of August latest, allthough this already would lead to
an extremly tight schedule.
Maybe the A11y SC can discuss and agree on one of the options today, so
that the TC can take the appropriate actions in its TC meeting on Monday.
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.
Whatever the SC thinks is the best solution works for me, and I believe
for the TC as well.
I personally prefer option a) if the Accessibility SC would like to have
at least those recommendation included in the specification that were
contained in the A11y report, and option b), if this is not the case.
Michael
Mary McRae wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I personally like Peter's suggestion that the accessibility guidelines be
> treated as a separate document that Appendix E would reference; particularly
> since it's non-normative. One concern with the current approach would be that
> unless additional public reviews are intended prior to voting v1.1 as a
> Committee Specification and optionally submitting for OASIS Standard vote, no
> new material can be added, meaning that the additional work under development
> would have to wait for the next release of the main specification. I'm only
> jumping in here because I have already received a request from Michael to
> announce the public review; if you want to change the document to accomodate
> this suggestion now would be time ... Michael can withdraw his request, Appendix
> E can be modified, and then we can go forward with the 60-day review.
>
> Please note that this is just my personal opinion and should not be construed
> to carry any more weight because of my position as TC Administrator and/or Staff
> Contact.
>
> Mary
>
>
>>