W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Re-Organizing Guideline 2.7

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:12:16 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: Authoring Tools WG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
At 04:39 p.m. 04/21/99 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>1. take existing Checkpoint 2.7.2, renumber it Checkpoint 2.7.1, and make P1
>2. take existing Checkpoint 2.7.3, renumber it Checkpoint 2.7.2, and keep P1
>3. take existing Checkpoint 2.7.1, renumber it Checkpoint 2.7.3, and make P2
>4. retain Checkpoint 2.7.4 as is

I think the checkpoints will be shuffled around again sometime
in the future based on priority, as it is.  I agree with your
assessment of (existing) 2.7.2 as "vitally important" but it does
not rise to the level of a priority one as defined by the current
priority listing, in my opinion.

This is an example of why I think we need to re-write our priority
definitions so that we can give P1 to our biggest and best stuff,
which we currently can't do.

What do you think of my proposal for new priority defs?

Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
President, Governing Board Member
HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org>
Director, Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education Center
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 17:15:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC