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

Re: techniques 2.1.2

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906171042520.17633-100000@tux.w3.org>
These are techniques - possible ways of implementing the checkpoint. The
checkpoint requires that some mechanism is provided, but there is no
statement about which particular method a developer uses. Hence "may", which
seems to me should be consistent throughout the techniques.


On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, William Loughborough wrote:

  "An authoring tool which offers a "rendered view" of a document, such as
  a browser preview mode, may provide an editing view whose presentation
  can be controlled independently of the rendered view. 
  "A "WYSIWYG" editor may allow an author to specify a local stylesheet,
  which will override the "published" style of the document."
  "may" somehow seems overly permissive.  If you just can't stand "must"
  then at least go for "should"!  Since this is P1, I vote for "must".

--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, 17 June 1999 10:45:12 UTC

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