Thread Subject: Re: 3d/3e for content format

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Sep 07 2007 6:50 AM

Peers,

To give a specific example, when we say "content formats" a
specific example would be HTML or XML? Should we be referencing RFC 4647
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt)?

Thus Peter's comment that simple text editors won't be able to
"do this" isn't the issue. The issue is one of the "content format"
(HTML in this example) should support it, and if you use a simple text
editor that is no different than any other tag - you need to know what
you are doing and (dare I say it) validate your content.

The article "Language tags in HTML and XML" may be useful to the
reader:
http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/Overview.en.php

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:54 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 3d/3e for content format


Andrew:
My recollection of the discussion was that it supports allowing
synthetic speech outputs to change pronunciation to the language to be
read, think of hearing Spanish using English pronunciation rules.

I think this is also in the spirit of "raising the bar".

I think we could seriously consider combining them in to one provision
however, since I'm not sure having D without E is worth a heck of a lot.
That would move us back to at least one less provision recommendation.

In the US we have a lot of multi-lingual content, so this is an issue on
occasion. I wouldn't raise this to something we MUST do due to
technology change, but it would be a good inclusion and is testable. D
is more easily testable than E, since E requires that the page be
analyzed, probably word by word for language change to identify if the
language change was identified.





Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:32 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 3d/3e for content format

In the spirit of trying to reduce the extra weight of the new standards,
I'll raise my question again -- why is language support in 508? We do
have other WCAG standards that we have not included, and this seems like
it is not needed in the U.S. standard.

What is our rationale for requiring the language support in content
formats and web and software provisions?

AWK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter

> Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 3d/3e for content format
>
> Hi Allen,
>
> We need to be careful with this one. Simple text editors (think
> Notepad) won't be able to do this.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > Action item from Tuesday, 09/04.
> >
> > Content formats which support multiple languages MUST provide a
> > programmatically determinable mechanism to identify the primary
> > language, and the language of any sections which are in
> another language
> > from the primary language.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University