W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > April 2004

WCAG 2.0 comments: Issue 700

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:16:47 -0400
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040430181433.022da6e0@localhost>
To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Hello Greg,

Thank you for your comments on WCAG 2.0 [1].  This email shows how the WCAG 
WG has attempted to address one of your concerns.  We will send a separate 
email for each of the issues you raised. Please let us know if we have 
adequately addressed your issues.

Issue 700 [2]

Greg Lowney writes:
54.     Guideline 3.2 "if contracted forms of words are used such that
they are ambiguous, provide semantic markup to make words unique and
interpretable"
54.a.    [LOW PRIORITY] This guideline is not clear to me. What are
examples of ambiguous contracted words?
54.b.    [COMMENT] If we're going to require markup to disambiguate
contractions, why not non-contracted words that have ambiguous meanings?
Other than the fact that it'd be a lot of work to comply, that is.
===

In the March 11, 2004 Working Draft [3], this was reworded to "The meaning 
of contracted words can be programmatically determined. [I] "  Does this 
address the issue?

Thank you,
--wendy

[1] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2003Nov/0003.html>
[2] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=700>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/#meaning>

-- wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--  
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 18:33:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:18 GMT