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

Re: tersification

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 21:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905272111051.3067-100000@tux.w3.org>
This sounds like the Priority 'R' proposal that Daniel put forward at
Toronto. I think it is my preferred model, but I would like to know which
option other people find the clearest.

Charles

On Thu, 27 May 1999, William Loughborough wrote:

  The "relative priority" issue is addressed in the 527 document by this
  clause:
  
  "(Priority 1 for *** which is [Web-Content-Priority-1], Priority 2 for
  *** which is [Web-Content-Priority-2], Priority 3 for *** which is
  [Web-Content-Priority-3])"
  
  How about:
  "Priority level for *** corresponds to its priority level in WCAG."?
  
  Where *** is "alternative content" in 2.4.2, "structural information" in
  2.4.3, "accessibility problems" in 2.6.1 & 2.6.3. 
  -- 
  Love.
              ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  http://dicomp.pair.com
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 27 May 1999 21:12:19 UTC

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