MicPie/unpredictable_w3-org · Datasets at Hugging Face

task stringlengths 12 101	input stringlengths 5 5.87k	output stringlengths 1 5.47k	options sequence	pageTitle stringlengths 0 151	outputColName stringlengths 1 142	url stringlengths 24 147	wdcFile stringlengths 71 75
1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer	[Event Name] dragstart [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] uninitialized [dropEffect] none [Default Action] Initiate the drag-and-drop operation [dataTransfer]	Contains source node unless a selection is being dragged, in which case it is empty	[]	HTML 5	dataTransfer	http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json
1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer	[Event Name] drag [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action] Continue the drag-and-drop operation [dataTransfer]	Empty	[]	HTML 5	dataTransfer	http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json
1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer	[Event Name] dragenter [Target] Immediate user selection or the body element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action] Reject immediate user selection as potential target element [dataTransfer]	Empty	[]	HTML 5	dataTransfer	http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json
1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer	[Event Name] dragleave [Target] Previous target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action] None [dataTransfer]	Empty	[]	HTML 5	dataTransfer	http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json
1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer	[Event Name] dragover [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action] Reset the current drag operation to "none" [dataTransfer]	Empty	[]	HTML 5	dataTransfer	http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json
1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer	[Event Name] drop [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action] Varies [dataTransfer]	getData() returns data set in dragstart event	[]	HTML 5	dataTransfer	http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json
1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer	[Event Name] dragend [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action] Varies [dataTransfer]	Empty	[]	HTML 5	dataTransfer	http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json
c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description	[Expression] font name [Setting] string [Description]	the name of the font	[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]	XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902	46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json
c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description	[Expression] point size [Setting] short int [Description]	the size of the font	[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]	XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902	46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json
c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description	[Expression] weight [Setting] plain [Description]	use plain face	[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]	XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902	46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json
c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description	[Setting] bold [Description]	use bold face	[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]	XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902	46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json
c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description	[Expression] effects [Setting] underline [Description]	underline the text	[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]	XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902	46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json
c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description	[Expression] form [Setting] italics [Description]	use the italic form	[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]	XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902	46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 9a [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. [Resolution] Resolution: Link the first occurrence of the term "techniques" to http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html#introduction-layers-techs-head, to clarify what is meant by this term. Rationale: There seems to be a confusion about the meaning of the term "techniques". The concept of "techniques" in WCAG 2.0 applies for evaluators and developers - they are ways for checking the complaince to Success Criteria. [Suggested Change]	This section requires completely rewriting to make it clear we are talking about the evaluation techniques not the web-design techniques.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 9b [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: Listing individual tools limits the applicability of the methodology in different situations (e.g. different languages) and adds dependencies that make it difficult to maintain. [Suggested Change]	Describe the various tools and techniques that will be employed when conducting this evaluation.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 9c [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: The concept of "techniques" in WCAG 2.0 are non-exclusive and thus non-normative - the compliance applies to the Success Criteria. [Suggested Change]	This section [...] should not be optional.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 10 [Commenter] Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] This is an area that is confusing for people. Advisory techniques may not be fully supported by AT and should be noted in this section. If they are used, we should note that evaluators should make sure that they work with the web browsers and AT selected in step 3.1.4 Step 1d [Resolution] Resolution: Add "Note: Advisory techniques may not be fully supported by Assistive Technology. If they are used, make sure that these work with the web browsers and Assistive Technology selected in step 3.1.4 Step 1.d" in this section or in section 3.4.2 Step 4.b Rationale: This may be more applicable to the actual evaluation stage though some mention here may be useful too. [Suggested Change]	Add information about sufficient vs advisory techniques	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 11a [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] The second and third sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction are helpful suggestions and not related directly to the first sentence or the main purpose of this step. Therefore they should form a new paragraph. [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The paragraph makes two distinct points [Suggested Change]	Separate 1st paraghraph into two	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 11b [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] This first exploration of the website should also check/confirm the purpose of the site. This is the only time the evaluator will get a "first impression" so the word purpose (or similar) should be included [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The purpose of the website should indeed be confirmed in this step [Suggested Change]	Add "purpose" to the first sentence	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 11c [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] We agreed that the default position is to evaluate every page of the website as this is the only way to be 100% sure of the reliability of our result [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Change to "for more detailed evaluation later on" Rationale: Not crucial to relate this aspect to sampling Also see commment ID14 [Suggested Change]	Remove "as candidates for selection in the sampling step defined in 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample" from the end of the 1st paragraph	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 12 [Commenter] Martijn Houtepen (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] Editorial [Current Text] Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage already helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. [Rationale] The word 'already' seems superfluous [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The word 'already' is superfluous [Suggested Change]	Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 13a [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Rationale] I do not see why separating the template from the instance of the template would make sense [...] Most SC would need to be evaluated not in a 'dry run' but as instantiated web page [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested in this and other sections where applicable, and add a note on identifying templates as an additional, optional part the sample Rationale: Currently the emphasis on "templates" seems too strong [Suggested Change]	Remove references to "template"	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 13b [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Rationale] I have added 'page states' as important parts of the sample [...] Page states is just as important as common webpages and templates [Resolution] Resolution: Add "including the states of a web page" with a link to the section on web applications where relevant Rationale: Important reminder that "web pages" includes each of its states [Suggested Change]	Add "page states"	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 14 [Commenter] Richard Warren, Kerstin Probiesch, and Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] We have discussed this at length and agreed that a full audit (every page) should be the default position. Sampling should only be used if the site is large and resources are limited. If sampling is used it must be stated in the conformance claim. [Resolution] Resolution: Add a paragraph like "While ideally every web page of a website is evaluated, usually this is not possible on most websites. In cases where all web pages can be evaluated, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the selected sample is considered to be the entire website in the remaining steps." Rationale: Reiterate what is already explained in the section on small websites See also commment ID11c [Suggested Change]	This section should be optional and requires an introductory paragraph to explain why sampling might be required.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 17 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3.2 Step 3.b: Include Exemplar Instances of Web Pages - Requirement 3b [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Requirement 3.b: At least two distinct web pages (where applicable) of each (1) key functionality, (2) content, design, and functionality, and (3) web technologies shall be part of the selected sample of web pages. [Rationale] One page per feature may be fine if the pages are nearly identical in structure and content. I believe that it must be down to the site exploration and the actual variation found whether one, two or more pages should be selected. Following this rule strictly it would greatly increase the number of pages in the sample (and in turn, effort) often with only marginal benefits. [Resolution] Resolution: Open an issue to "Discuss number of webpages for requirement 3.b", and ask specifically for comments on this section when we publish the draft for public comments Rationale: This issue requires more thought and discussion [Suggested Change]	I would drop the requirement to have two distinct pages if what is meant is necessarily have two instances of page based on the same template. Instead I would put more emphasis than currently in evidence on exploring (and selecting, documenting) different page states (expanded menus, light boxes, tab panels, inserted error handling messages, etc)	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 18 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.3.4 Step 3.d: Include Complete Processes in the Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Requirement 3.d: All web pages that are part of a complete process shall be included. The selected sample must include all web pages that belong to a series of web pages presenting a complete process. Also, no web page in the selected sample may be part of a process without all other web pages that are part of that process to be also included into the selected sample. [Rationale] Evaluating many near-identical process pages would be a waste of time. [Resolution] Resolution: No Change Resolution: To know this, it is necessary to do evaluation. Repetition is already covered in the Note in section 3.4 Step 4. [Suggested Change]	Add a note: "Note: Including all pages of a process in the selected sample is not necessary when process steps are repetitive and based on the same template. For example, an online questionnaire may lead the user through dozens of multiple choice questions, each containing four radio buttons and based on the same template. In such case, including one of these pages in the selected sample would be sufficient."	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 19 [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Audit the Selected Sample [Rationale] We agreed that full audits were the default position [Resolution] Resolution: No change Rationale: Several places throughout the document explain that the sample can be the entire website (see resolution for comment ID14). The suggested change to the title adds considerable complexity for fairly few situations. [Suggested Change]	Title should read 'Audit the site or the selected sample'. Change also every reference to this section in other sections.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 20 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - Note [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Note at the end of the section [Rationale] I would argue that the assessment of WCAG SC should be carried out for each page in the sample [...] [Resolution] Resolution: No change Rationale: 3.4 Step 4 already states: "WCAG 2.0 defines five conformance requirements that need to be met for each web page in the sample [...] This includes checking whether each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion in the target conformance level [...] has been met or not met for each of these web pages" [Suggested Change]	All SC should be rated for all pages in the selected sample. Comments may be included just once and referenced from other places having the same issue.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 21 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - The penultimate sentence of the Note: for step 4 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page. [Rationale] The note refers to repetitive content. At present this sentence reads "evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page." This is a little ambiguous and could be taken to include none-repetitive content. [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Suggested Change]	Change to add phrase "repetitive elements" and read as follows: "evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for these repetitive elements on every web page."	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 22 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 1 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been met. [Rationale] Whether WCAG-EM should include 'not applicable' as rating option has been discussed at length in a previous EVAL-TF teleconference and I remember there was a sound majority in favour of it. [Resolution] Previous resolution: Change note to read "Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been satisfied. An outcome such as 'Not Applicable' may be used to denote the particular situation where Success Criteria were satisfied because no relevant content was applicable", and add link to the definition of "satisfy" in WCAG2.0 Updated resolution: Further refine the note in response to WCAG WG Comment #19 to read "Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria to which there is no matching content are deemed to have been satisfied. An outcome such as 'Not Applicable' may be used to denote the particular situation where Success Criteria were satisfied because no relevant content was applicable", and add link to the definition of "satisfy" in WCAG2.0 Rationale: Clarifies the use of terms such as 'Not Applicable' [Suggested Change]	Note: While according to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to be satisfied, evaluators are free to set those Success Criteria to 'not applicable' since this differentiation can be highly meaningful for clients and other users of the evalution results.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 24 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 2 [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Second Note (at the end of the section) [Rationale] I do not see how one would evaluate the template on its own, instead of a particular instance with all content rendered as web page. Therefore I find the whole paragraph rather confusing. The point included in my suggested revision is different: cut out repetition if some issue has already been explained on another page in the sample. [Resolution] Resolution: Change note to "Templates are often used to create many web pages, sometimes entire parts a website. While evaluating templates is optional in this methodology, in some contexts it can be helpful to check templates on their own. Evaluating templates may identify potential issues that may not be easily identified through evaluating individual instances of web pages. However, issues identified in templates alone do not necessarily imply that these issues occur on the website and need to be validated on individual instances of web pages. Also, identifying no issues in templates does not necessarily imply that no issues occur on on individual instances of web pages" Rationale: Some of the previous references to templates are removed per comment ID13a, so that this note may become more valuable. Evaluating templates on their own helps understand how a website is contructed and identify potential issues that are not easy to identify otherwise. See discussion thread on "templates" and Minutes from 30 August Telco for change from "usually" to "often" in the resolution [Suggested Change]	"Many websites are based on templates. Evaluating one page based on a particular template can identify accessibility issues pertinent also to other pages based on the same template. When evaluating further pages based on the same template and the same template issue is found, Success Criteria ratings and comments may simply refer to other pages in the sample where the issue has already been covered."	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 25 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch and Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible [Rationale] As 3.1.5 Step 1.e is optional this step must be optional too. Furthermore without making it optional some of current wcag evaluation methodology such as Accessiweb, RGAA, UWEM,etc will fail to conform to WCAG-EM [Resolution] Resolution: Add "(Optional)" to the current title Rationale: It is understood that the use of techniques is optional [Suggested Change]	Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques test procedure Where Possible (optional)	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 26 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4.b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Requirement 4.b: "Where possible, WCAG 2.0 techniques shall be used to demonstrate successes and failures in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria relevant per 3.1.3 Step 1.c: Define the Conformance Target." [Rationale] It is still not clear that if the evaluator can identify the correct use of WCAG techniques then these can be used by the evaluator as evidence of compliance. I suggest that the wording be changed. This means that the evaluator can confirm compliance if the appropriate technique has been correctly applied without having to do any other test. For example: if the label element has been applied to enclose both the field instruction and the input field then there is no need to check manually if the form progresses properly when using the keyboard or can work in forms mode with a screen reader. [Resolution] Resolution: Change to "Where possible, applicable WCAG 2.0 techniques shall be used to demonstrate successes and failures [...]" Rationale: "Common Failure" techniques can also be used to demonstrate not met Success Criteria [Suggested Change]	Requirement 4.b: "Where the correct use of appropriate WCAG 2.0 techniques can be identified they can be used to demonstrate successes in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria."	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 28 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of techniques. [Rationale] The sentence is unclear. Reason: there is no way to build a web page without using techniques. [Resolution] Previous resolution: Change to "In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of documented techniques." Previous rationale: Clarifies that we are refering to a particular use of the term 'techniques' (as per WCAG 2.0) Updated resolution: Comment addressed per changes in response to Comment #29 Updated rationale: The entire section has been rewritten so that particular comments is no longer applicable; however, the rationale of the comment has been principally accepted and integrated into the rewrite for the section [Suggested Change]	Rewrite the sentence and the section and make it optional.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 29 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, first bullet point [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Second paragraph, including bullet list [Rationale] Several rationale provided in the comment [Resolution] Resolution: We added an editor note with brief description of what we are looking for to step 1e to ask for public review on this section and open an issue to discuss this issue further after publication. Note: See suggestion for editorial improvements to 3.1.5 Step 1.e and 3.4.2 Step 4.b Rationale: Comments mostly accepted but wording such as "evidence" have not been directly adopted as proposed. See for final decision: EvalTF minutes of 30 August 2012 [Suggested Change]	Complete rewording provided in the comment	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 30 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, end of last but one paragraph [Status] Closed [Priority] Mild [Current Text] Otherwise it is good practice (for efficacy and justifiability) to use existing techniques to demonstrate successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. [Rationale] This is in substance a repetition of the intitial statement that (WCAG Techniques) "..provide an effective way of demonstrating whether WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met or not met." 'Justifiability' seems the wrong term - what is meant is that refering to the success or failure of using a WCAG Technique (established through its test) provides evidence for the conformance judgement of the evaluator. Also not sure whether referring to the matching WCAG Technique makes anything more 'efficacious' [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Removed as suggested Rationale: Agreement with the rationale provided Note: See also the changes to this sectuib in response to Comment #29 [Suggested Change]	Delete the sentence.	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 31 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.3 Step 4.c: Assess Accessibility Support for Technologies - Requirement 4c [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Each use of the web technologies used to create the web page content shall be checked to be accessibility supported by the tools defined in Step 1.d:. [Rationale] We are not evaluating the tools etc used to create the site (e.g Dreamweaver, Joomla, Websphere etc). We are checking the technologies used to deliver the content to the user. For example if scripts are used to display content such as warnings (and we have note specified in step 1d that all users will have scripting enabled) will the content still display if scripting is not enabled ? [Resolution] Resolution: Changed as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Suggested Change]	Change word 'create' to 'present' in the requirement statement as follows: "Requirement 4.c: Each use of the web technologies used to present the web page content shall be checked to be accessibility supported by the tools defined in Step 1.d:".	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change	[ID] 32 [Commenter] Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.5.2 Step 5.b: Provide an Accessibility Statement (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within 10 business days; [Rationale] Why 10 days? In some situations it can take longer to get something fixed on some big corporate or ministerial website. [Resolution] Resolution: Changed to "The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the accessibility statement"; See current discussion thread on "accessibility statements". Also: Changed Accessibility Statement (Optional)" to " Provide an Accessibility Evaluation Statement @@@ According to this Methodology (Optional)" in 4 september 2012 Editor Draft. Rationale: Remediation action is beyond the scope of an evaluation methodology [Suggested Change]	The website owner commits to give feedback on any valid issues known to them within 5 business days; This feedback should containt a detailed planning of remediation or an alternative way to get access to the information	[]	Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012	Suggested Change	http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i1 [title] HTTP Version should be case sensitive [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i3 [title] Chunk Size Definition [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i5 [title] Via is a MUST [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i6 [title] Fragments allowed in Location [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i10 [title] Safe Methods vs Redirection [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i11 [title] URI includes query [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i12 [title] Invalidation after Update or Delete [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i14 [title] Clarification regarding quoting of charset values [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i15 [title] No close on 1xx responses [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i17 [title] Revise description of the POST method [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i18 [title] Cache validators in 206 responses [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i25 [title] Accept-Encoding BNF [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i31 [title] qdtext BNF [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i62 [title] Whitespace in quoted-pair [target] RFC2616 [type]	design	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i2 [title] 'unsafe' characters [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i4 [title] Message Length [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i7 [title] Editors Notes [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i8 [title] Media type registrations [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i9 [title] Trailer [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i16 [title] Remove 'identity' token references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i26 [title] Import query BNF [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i42 [title] RFC2606 compliance [target] RFC2616 [draft] 02 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i44 [title] Unneeded references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i45 [title] RFC977 reference [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i46 [title] references to RFC1700 [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i47 [title] inconsistency in date format explanation [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i48 [title] Date reference typo [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i49 [title] Connection header text [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i65 [title] Informative references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i66 [title] ISO-8859-1 Reference [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i68 [title] Encoding References Normative [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i84 [title] Redundant cross-references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i86 [title] Normative up-to-date references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type	[id] i87 [title] typo in 13.2.2 [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]	editorial	[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]	RFC2616bis Issues	type	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E1 [Bugzilla] 4372 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum places constraints on the type of string that is valid for the doctype-public attribute of xsl:output.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E2 [Bugzilla] 4557 [Category] editorial [Description]	This erratum corrects an editorial error concerning the number of phases of serialization.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E3 [Bugzilla] 5066 [Category] editorial [Description]	This erratum corrects an editorial error concerning the currently registered XHTML media types.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E4 [Bugzilla] 5433 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum clarifies how descendant elements of an XML island must be serialized according to the HTML output method.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E5 [Bugzilla] 5439 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum aligns the description of the effect of the include-content-type serialization parameter of the HTML output method with that of the XHTML output method.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E6 [Bugzilla] 5458 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum ensures that the sequence normalization process preserves any type annotations associated with nodes in the input sequence.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E7 [Bugzilla] 5300 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum clarifies how elements with empty content models are to be serialized under the HTML and XHTML output methods.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E8 [Bugzilla] 5441 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum ensures that Unicode normalization applies to all characters that might be adjacent in the serialized result produced by the text output method, including those that are in text nodes that are separated by element nodes in the data model instance.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E9 [Bugzilla] 5993 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum makes previously non-normative text that describes how the xhtml and html output methods must behave if the indent parameter has the value yes into normative text.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E10 [Bugzilla] 6466 [Category] substantive [Description]	This erratum specifies the syntactic constraints on the values of the doctype-public and doctype-system serialization parameters.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description	[Erratum] E11 [Bugzilla] 6376 [Category] editorial [Description]	This erratum makes clear which parts of the recommendation are not considered to be normative.	[]	XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version	Description	http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i1 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	HTTP Version should be case sensitive	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i3 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Chunk Size Definition	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i5 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Via is a MUST	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i6 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Fragments allowed in Location	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i10 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Safe Methods vs Redirection	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i11 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	URI includes query	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i12 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Invalidation after Update or Delete	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i14 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Clarification regarding quoting of charset values	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i15 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	No close on 1xx responses	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i17 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Revise description of the POST method	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i18 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]	Cache validators in 206 responses	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i25 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 04 [title]	Accept-Encoding BNF	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i31 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 04 [title]	qdtext BNF	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i62 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [title]	Whitespace in quoted-pair	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i2 [target] RFC2616 [type] editorial [draft] 01 [title]	'unsafe' characters	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i4 [target] RFC2616 [type] editorial [draft] 01 [title]	Message Length	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json
3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title	[id] i7 [target] RFC2616 [type] editorial [draft] 01 [title]	Editors Notes	[]	RFC2616bis Issues	title	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/	46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer

[Event Name] dragstart [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] uninitialized [dropEffect] none [Default Action] Initiate the drag-and-drop operation [dataTransfer]

Contains source node unless a selection is being dragged, in which case it is empty

[]

HTML 5

dataTransfer

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json

1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer

[Event Name] drag [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action] Continue the drag-and-drop operation [dataTransfer]

Empty

[]

HTML 5

dataTransfer

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json

1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer

[Event Name] dragenter [Target] Immediate user selection or the body element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action] Reject immediate user selection as potential target element [dataTransfer]

Empty

[]

HTML 5

dataTransfer

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json

1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer

[Event Name] dragleave [Target] Previous target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action] None [dataTransfer]

Empty

[]

HTML 5

dataTransfer

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json

1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer

[Event Name] dragover [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action] Reset the current drag operation to "none" [dataTransfer]

Empty

[]

HTML 5

dataTransfer

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json

1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer

[Event Name] drop [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action] Varies [dataTransfer]

getData() returns data set in dragstart event

[]

HTML 5

dataTransfer

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json

1466c179_HTML_5__dataTransfer

[Event Name] dragend [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action] Varies [dataTransfer]

Empty

[]

HTML 5

dataTransfer

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/editing.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00271-ip-10-236-191-2_825196425_0.json

c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description

[Expression] font name [Setting] string [Description]

the name of the font

[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]

XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902

46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json

c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description

[Expression] point size [Setting] short int [Description]

the size of the font

[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]

XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902

46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json

c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description

[Expression] weight [Setting] plain [Description]

use plain face

[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]

XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902

46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json

c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description

[Setting] bold [Description]

use bold face

[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]

XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902

46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json

c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description

[Expression] effects [Setting] underline [Description]

underline the text

[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]

XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902

46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json

c271db46_sion_4_0_Specification_DRAFT_1__Description

[Expression] form [Setting] italics [Description]

use the italic form

[ [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "n", "a", "m", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "t", "h", "e", " ", "s", "i", "z", "e", " ", "o", "f", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "f", "o", "n", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "p", "l", "a", "i", "n", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "b", "o", "l", "d", " ", "f", "a", "c", "e" ], [ "u", "n", "d", "e", "r", "l", "i", "n", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "t", "e", "x", "t" ], [ "u", "s", "e", " ", "t", "h", "e", " ", "i", "t", "a", "l", "i", "c", " ", "f", "o", "r", "m" ] ]

XFDL Version 4.0 Specification DRAFT 1

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XFDL-19980902

46/1438042989331.34_20150728002309-00091-ip-10-236-191-2_824526004_50.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 9a [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. [Resolution] Resolution: Link the first occurrence of the term "techniques" to http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html#introduction-layers-techs-head, to clarify what is meant by this term. Rationale: There seems to be a confusion about the meaning of the term "techniques". The concept of "techniques" in WCAG 2.0 applies for evaluators and developers - they are ways for checking the complaince to Success Criteria. [Suggested Change]

This section requires completely rewriting to make it clear we are talking about the evaluation techniques not the web-design techniques.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 9b [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: Listing individual tools limits the applicability of the methodology in different situations (e.g. different languages) and adds dependencies that make it difficult to maintain. [Suggested Change]

Describe the various tools and techniques that will be employed when conducting this evaluation.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 9c [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: The concept of "techniques" in WCAG 2.0 are non-exclusive and thus non-normative - the compliance applies to the Success Criteria. [Suggested Change]

This section [...] should not be optional.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 10 [Commenter] Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] This is an area that is confusing for people. Advisory techniques may not be fully supported by AT and should be noted in this section. If they are used, we should note that evaluators should make sure that they work with the web browsers and AT selected in step 3.1.4 Step 1d [Resolution] Resolution: Add "Note: Advisory techniques may not be fully supported by Assistive Technology. If they are used, make sure that these work with the web browsers and Assistive Technology selected in step 3.1.4 Step 1.d" in this section or in section 3.4.2 Step 4.b Rationale: This may be more applicable to the actual evaluation stage though some mention here may be useful too. [Suggested Change]

Add information about sufficient vs advisory techniques

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 11a [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] The second and third sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction are helpful suggestions and not related directly to the first sentence or the main purpose of this step. Therefore they should form a new paragraph. [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The paragraph makes two distinct points [Suggested Change]

Separate 1st paraghraph into two

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 11b [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] This first exploration of the website should also check/confirm the *purpose* of the site. This is the only time the evaluator will get a "first impression" so the word purpose (or similar) should be included [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The purpose of the website should indeed be confirmed in this step [Suggested Change]

Add "purpose" to the first sentence

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 11c [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] We agreed that the default position is to evaluate every page of the website as this is the only way to be 100% sure of the reliability of our result [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Change to "for more detailed evaluation later on" Rationale: Not crucial to relate this aspect to sampling Also see commment ID14 [Suggested Change]

Remove "as candidates for selection in the sampling step defined in 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample" from the end of the 1st paragraph

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 12 [Commenter] Martijn Houtepen (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] Editorial [Current Text] Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage already helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. [Rationale] The word 'already' seems superfluous [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The word 'already' is superfluous [Suggested Change]

Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 13a [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Rationale] I do not see why separating the template from the instance of the template would make sense [...] Most SC would need to be evaluated not in a 'dry run' but as instantiated web page [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested in this and other sections where applicable, and add a note on identifying templates as an additional, optional part the sample Rationale: Currently the emphasis on "templates" seems too strong [Suggested Change]

Remove references to "template"

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 13b [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Rationale] I have added 'page states' as important parts of the sample [...] Page states is just as important as common webpages and templates [Resolution] Resolution: Add "including the states of a web page" with a link to the section on web applications where relevant Rationale: Important reminder that "web pages" includes each of its states [Suggested Change]

Add "page states"

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 14 [Commenter] Richard Warren, Kerstin Probiesch, and Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] We have discussed this at length and agreed that a full audit (every page) should be the default position. Sampling should only be used if the site is large and resources are limited. If sampling is used it must be stated in the conformance claim. [Resolution] Resolution: Add a paragraph like "While ideally every web page of a website is evaluated, usually this is not possible on most websites. In cases where all web pages can be evaluated, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the selected sample is considered to be the entire website in the remaining steps." Rationale: Reiterate what is already explained in the section on small websites See also commment ID11c [Suggested Change]

This section should be optional and requires an introductory paragraph to explain why sampling might be required.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 17 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3.2 Step 3.b: Include Exemplar Instances of Web Pages - Requirement 3b [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Requirement 3.b: At least two distinct web pages (where applicable) of each (1) key functionality, (2) content, design, and functionality, and (3) web technologies shall be part of the selected sample of web pages. [Rationale] One page per feature may be fine if the pages are nearly identical in structure and content. I believe that it must be down to the site exploration and the actual variation found whether one, two or more pages should be selected. Following this rule strictly it would greatly increase the number of pages in the sample (and in turn, effort) often with only marginal benefits. [Resolution] Resolution: Open an issue to "Discuss number of webpages for requirement 3.b", and ask specifically for comments on this section when we publish the draft for public comments Rationale: This issue requires more thought and discussion [Suggested Change]

I would drop the requirement to have two distinct pages if what is meant is necessarily have two instances of page based on the same template. Instead I would put more emphasis than currently in evidence on exploring (and selecting, documenting) different *page states* (expanded menus, light boxes, tab panels, inserted error handling messages, etc)

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 18 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.3.4 Step 3.d: Include Complete Processes in the Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Requirement 3.d: All web pages that are part of a complete process shall be included. The selected sample must include all web pages that belong to a series of web pages presenting a complete process. Also, no web page in the selected sample may be part of a process without all other web pages that are part of that process to be also included into the selected sample. [Rationale] Evaluating many near-identical process pages would be a waste of time. [Resolution] Resolution: No Change Resolution: To know this, it is necessary to do evaluation. Repetition is already covered in the Note in section 3.4 Step 4. [Suggested Change]

Add a note: "Note: Including all pages of a process in the selected sample is not necessary when process steps are repetitive and based on the same template. For example, an online questionnaire may lead the user through dozens of multiple choice questions, each containing four radio buttons and based on the same template. In such case, including one of these pages in the selected sample would be sufficient."

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 19 [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Audit the Selected Sample [Rationale] We agreed that full audits were the default position [Resolution] Resolution: No change Rationale: Several places throughout the document explain that the sample can be the entire website (see resolution for comment ID14). The suggested change to the title adds considerable complexity for fairly few situations. [Suggested Change]

Title should read 'Audit the site or the selected sample'. Change also every reference to this section in other sections.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 20 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - Note [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Note at the end of the section [Rationale] I would argue that the assessment of WCAG SC should be carried out for each page in the sample [...] [Resolution] Resolution: No change Rationale: 3.4 Step 4 already states: "WCAG 2.0 defines five conformance requirements that need to be met for each web page in the sample [...] This includes checking whether each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion in the target conformance level [...] has been met or not met for each of these web pages" [Suggested Change]

All SC should be rated for all pages in the selected sample. Comments may be included just once and referenced from other places having the same issue.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 21 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - The penultimate sentence of the Note: for step 4 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page. [Rationale] The note refers to repetitive content. At present this sentence reads "evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page." This is a little ambiguous and could be taken to include none-repetitive content. [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Suggested Change]

Change to add phrase "repetitive elements" and read as follows: "evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for these repetitive elements on every web page."

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 22 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 1 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been met. [Rationale] Whether WCAG-EM should include 'not applicable' as rating option has been discussed at length in a previous EVAL-TF teleconference and I remember there was a sound majority in favour of it. [Resolution] Previous resolution: Change note to read "Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been satisfied. An outcome such as 'Not Applicable' may be used to denote the particular situation where Success Criteria were satisfied because no relevant content was applicable", and add link to the definition of "satisfy" in WCAG2.0 Updated resolution: Further refine the note in response to WCAG WG Comment #19 to read "Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria to which there is no matching content are deemed to have been satisfied. An outcome such as 'Not Applicable' may be used to denote the particular situation where Success Criteria were satisfied because no relevant content was applicable", and add link to the definition of "satisfy" in WCAG2.0 Rationale: Clarifies the use of terms such as 'Not Applicable' [Suggested Change]

Note: While according to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to be satisfied, evaluators are free to set those Success Criteria to 'not applicable' since this differentiation can be highly meaningful for clients and other users of the evalution results.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 24 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 2 [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Second Note (at the end of the section) [Rationale] I do not see how one would evaluate the template on its own, instead of a particular instance with all content rendered as web page. Therefore I find the whole paragraph rather confusing. The point included in my suggested revision is different: cut out repetition if some issue has already been explained on another page in the sample. [Resolution] Resolution: Change note to "Templates are often used to create many web pages, sometimes entire parts a website. While evaluating templates is optional in this methodology, in some contexts it can be helpful to check templates on their own. Evaluating templates may identify potential issues that may not be easily identified through evaluating individual instances of web pages. However, issues identified in templates alone do not necessarily imply that these issues occur on the website and need to be validated on individual instances of web pages. Also, identifying no issues in templates does not necessarily imply that no issues occur on on individual instances of web pages" Rationale: Some of the previous references to templates are removed per comment ID13a, so that this note may become more valuable. Evaluating templates on their own helps understand how a website is contructed and identify potential issues that are not easy to identify otherwise. See discussion thread on "templates" and Minutes from 30 August Telco for change from "usually" to "often" in the resolution [Suggested Change]

"Many websites are based on templates. Evaluating one page based on a particular template can identify accessibility issues pertinent also to other pages based on the same template. When evaluating further pages based on the same template and the same template issue is found, Success Criteria ratings and comments may simply refer to other pages in the sample where the issue has already been covered."

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 25 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch and Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible [Rationale] As 3.1.5 Step 1.e is optional this step must be optional too. Furthermore without making it optional some of current wcag evaluation methodology such as Accessiweb, RGAA, UWEM,etc will fail to conform to WCAG-EM [Resolution] Resolution: Add "(Optional)" to the current title Rationale: It is understood that the use of techniques is optional [Suggested Change]

Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques test procedure Where Possible (optional)

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 26 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4.b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Requirement 4.b: "Where possible, WCAG 2.0 techniques shall be used to demonstrate successes and failures in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria relevant per 3.1.3 Step 1.c: Define the Conformance Target." [Rationale] It is still not clear that if the evaluator can identify the correct use of WCAG techniques then these can be used by the evaluator as evidence of compliance. I suggest that the wording be changed. This means that the evaluator can confirm compliance if the appropriate technique has been correctly applied without having to do any other test. For example: if the label element has been applied to enclose both the field instruction and the input field then there is no need to check manually if the form progresses properly when using the keyboard or can work in forms mode with a screen reader. [Resolution] Resolution: Change to "Where possible, applicable WCAG 2.0 techniques shall be used to demonstrate successes and failures [...]" Rationale: "Common Failure" techniques can also be used to demonstrate *not* met Success Criteria [Suggested Change]

Requirement 4.b: "Where the correct use of appropriate WCAG 2.0 techniques can be identified they can be used to demonstrate successes in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria."

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 28 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of techniques. [Rationale] The sentence is unclear. Reason: there is no way to build a web page without using techniques. [Resolution] Previous resolution: Change to "In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of documented techniques." Previous rationale: Clarifies that we are refering to a particular use of the term 'techniques' (as per WCAG 2.0) Updated resolution: Comment addressed per changes in response to Comment #29 Updated rationale: The entire section has been rewritten so that particular comments is no longer applicable; however, the rationale of the comment has been principally accepted and integrated into the rewrite for the section [Suggested Change]

Rewrite the sentence and the section and make it optional.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 29 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, first bullet point [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Second paragraph, including bullet list [Rationale] Several rationale provided in the comment [Resolution] Resolution: We added an editor note with brief description of what we are looking for to step 1e to ask for public review on this section and open an issue to discuss this issue further after publication. Note: See suggestion for editorial improvements to 3.1.5 Step 1.e and 3.4.2 Step 4.b Rationale: Comments mostly accepted but wording such as "evidence" have not been directly adopted as proposed. See for final decision: EvalTF minutes of 30 August 2012 [Suggested Change]

Complete rewording provided in the comment

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 30 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, end of last but one paragraph [Status] Closed [Priority] Mild [Current Text] Otherwise it is good practice (for efficacy and justifiability) to use existing techniques to demonstrate successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. [Rationale] This is in substance a repetition of the intitial statement that (WCAG Techniques) "..provide an effective way of demonstrating whether WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met or not met." 'Justifiability' seems the wrong term - what is meant is that refering to the success or failure of using a WCAG Technique (established through its test) provides evidence for the conformance judgement of the evaluator. Also not sure whether referring to the matching WCAG Technique makes anything more 'efficacious' [...] [Resolution] Resolution: Removed as suggested Rationale: Agreement with the rationale provided Note: See also the changes to this sectuib in response to Comment #29 [Suggested Change]

Delete the sentence.

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 31 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.3 Step 4.c: Assess Accessibility Support for Technologies - Requirement 4c [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Each use of the web technologies used to create the web page content shall be checked to be accessibility supported by the tools defined in Step 1.d:. [Rationale] We are not evaluating the tools etc used to create the site (e.g Dreamweaver, Joomla, Websphere etc). We are checking the technologies used to deliver the content to the user. For example if scripts are used to display content such as warnings (and we have note specified in step 1d that all users will have scripting enabled) will the content still display if scripting is not enabled ? [Resolution] Resolution: Changed as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Suggested Change]

Change word 'create' to 'present' in the requirement statement as follows: "Requirement 4.c: Each use of the web technologies used to present the web page content shall be checked to be accessibility supported by the tools defined in Step 1.d:".

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

0ce119b7_G_EM_Editor_Draft_30_July_2012_and_their_proposed_resolutions_Suggested_Change

[ID] 32 [Commenter] Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.5.2 Step 5.b: Provide an Accessibility Statement (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within 10 business days; [Rationale] Why 10 days? In some situations it can take longer to get something fixed on some big corporate or ministerial website. [Resolution] Resolution: Changed to "The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the accessibility statement"; See current discussion thread on "accessibility statements". Also: Changed Accessibility Statement (Optional)" to " Provide an Accessibility Evaluation Statement @@@ According to this Methodology (Optional)" in 4 september 2012 Editor Draft. Rationale: Remediation action is beyond the scope of an evaluation methodology [Suggested Change]

The website owner commits to give feedback on any valid issues known to them within 5 business days; This feedback should containt a detailed planning of remediation or an alternative way to get access to the information

[]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Suggested Change

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00191-ip-10-236-191-2_825076345_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i1 [title] HTTP Version should be case sensitive [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i3 [title] Chunk Size Definition [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i5 [title] Via is a MUST [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i6 [title] Fragments allowed in Location [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i10 [title] Safe Methods vs Redirection [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i11 [title] URI includes query [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i12 [title] Invalidation after Update or Delete [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i14 [title] Clarification regarding quoting of charset values [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i15 [title] No close on 1xx responses [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i17 [title] Revise description of the POST method [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i18 [title] Cache validators in 206 responses [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i25 [title] Accept-Encoding BNF [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i31 [title] qdtext BNF [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i62 [title] Whitespace in quoted-pair [target] RFC2616 [type]

design

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i2 [title] 'unsafe' characters [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i4 [title] Message Length [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i7 [title] Editors Notes [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i8 [title] Media type registrations [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i9 [title] Trailer [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i16 [title] Remove 'identity' token references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 01 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i26 [title] Import query BNF [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i42 [title] RFC2606 compliance [target] RFC2616 [draft] 02 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i44 [title] Unneeded references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i45 [title] RFC977 reference [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i46 [title] references to RFC1700 [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i47 [title] inconsistency in date format explanation [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i48 [title] Date reference typo [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i49 [title] Connection header text [target] RFC2616 [draft] 03 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i65 [title] Informative references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i66 [title] ISO-8859-1 Reference [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i68 [title] Encoding References Normative [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i84 [title] Redundant cross-references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i86 [title] Normative up-to-date references [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

501157d0_RFC2616bis_Issues__type

[id] i87 [title] typo in 13.2.2 [target] RFC2616 [draft] 04 [type]

editorial

[ [ "d", "e", "s", "i", "g", "n" ], [ "e", "d", "i", "t", "o", "r", "i", "a", "l" ] ]

RFC2616bis Issues

type

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E1 [Bugzilla] 4372 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum places constraints on the type of string that is valid for the doctype-public attribute of xsl:output.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E2 [Bugzilla] 4557 [Category] editorial [Description]

This erratum corrects an editorial error concerning the number of phases of serialization.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E3 [Bugzilla] 5066 [Category] editorial [Description]

This erratum corrects an editorial error concerning the currently registered XHTML media types.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E4 [Bugzilla] 5433 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum clarifies how descendant elements of an XML island must be serialized according to the HTML output method.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E5 [Bugzilla] 5439 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum aligns the description of the effect of the include-content-type serialization parameter of the HTML output method with that of the XHTML output method.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E6 [Bugzilla] 5458 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum ensures that the sequence normalization process preserves any type annotations associated with nodes in the input sequence.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E7 [Bugzilla] 5300 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum clarifies how elements with empty content models are to be serialized under the HTML and XHTML output methods.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E8 [Bugzilla] 5441 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum ensures that Unicode normalization applies to all characters that might be adjacent in the serialized result produced by the text output method, including those that are in text nodes that are separated by element nodes in the data model instance.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E9 [Bugzilla] 5993 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum makes previously non-normative text that describes how the xhtml and html output methods must behave if the indent parameter has the value yes into normative text.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E10 [Bugzilla] 6466 [Category] substantive [Description]

This erratum specifies the syntactic constraints on the values of the doctype-public and doctype-system serialization parameters.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

77c6a534_lization_3_0____Review_Version__Description

[Erratum] E11 [Bugzilla] 6376 [Category] editorial [Description]

This erratum makes clear which parts of the recommendation are not considered to be normative.

[]

XSLT and XQuery Serialization 3.0 -- Review Version

Description

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-xslt-xquery-serialization-30-20110614/xslt-xquery-serialization-30-diff.html

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00143-ip-10-236-191-2_826578908_6.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i1 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

HTTP Version should be case sensitive

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i3 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Chunk Size Definition

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i5 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Via is a MUST

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i6 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Fragments allowed in Location

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i10 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Safe Methods vs Redirection

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i11 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

URI includes query

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i12 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Invalidation after Update or Delete

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i14 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Clarification regarding quoting of charset values

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i15 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

No close on 1xx responses

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i17 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Revise description of the POST method

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i18 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 01 [title]

Cache validators in 206 responses

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i25 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 04 [title]

Accept-Encoding BNF

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i31 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [draft] 04 [title]

qdtext BNF

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i62 [target] RFC2616 [type] design [title]

Whitespace in quoted-pair

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i2 [target] RFC2616 [type] editorial [draft] 01 [title]

'unsafe' characters

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i4 [target] RFC2616 [type] editorial [draft] 01 [title]

Message Length

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json

3bf7f04d_RFC2616bis_Issues__title

[id] i7 [target] RFC2616 [type] editorial [draft] 01 [title]

Editors Notes

[]

RFC2616bis Issues

title

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/

46/1438042988922.24_20150728002308-00233-ip-10-236-191-2_831145926_2.json