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

RE: New guideline text for 2.1 and 2.2

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:15:09 -0500 (EST)
To: Charles Oppermann <chuckop@microsoft.com>
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902242355050.10835-100000@tux.w3.org>
Chuck,

the problems of dealing with materials which do not conform to W3C
recommendations, and ways of dealing with them were discussed at some
length in the teleconference today. The proposals which had been put
forward on the list were considered, modified by the working group, and
changes were resolved by the working group. This is in the minutes, which
are now on the web (although the event is still marked as upcoming that
too will change tonight, and the group will, as always, be notified that
minutes are available.

The new checkpoints on this topic will be incorporated in the next draft,
which is due in time for the meeting on Monday, but which should in fact
be available around noon Friday (Boston time) - again, the group will be
notified as
soon as that takes place.

With respect to priorities, the process we are currently following is to
identify problems and propose guidelines which address them, to propose
checkpoints which need to be met to solve the problems, and then to
discuss techniques, which are examples of how they might be implemented,
and references to further information, along with the priority of the
checkpoints. This is laid out in brief in my message at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JanMar/0075 (Subject
"some housekeeping stuff", 3 feb). 

This will allow us to do what the Web Content Guidelines group has done,
which is to reassess the priority of each checkpoint when we have what we
feel are a complete set of guidelines and checkpoints, rather than arguing
about the final form when we only have a partial solution.

I personally agree that a number of priorites need to be reviewed, but I
don't think that is the most urgent task for the group to tackle at the
moment. Since our resources are clearly limited, this seemed (to Jutta and
I when we were discussing it) the most sensible way to proceed, although
the working group may of course prefer to operate otherwise. 

In the agenda for the meeting next week there is time set aside for
discussion of how the group should proceed. The agenda for the meeting
will be updated immediately I have published the Working draft, and that
agenda item will still be there. Should it not be sufficiently resolved at
that point, or should you have further specific proposals on the amtter
which you would like the group to discuss, please raise them on the list
to be incorporated into the agenda in the usual manner.

Cheers

Charles McCathieNevile

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Charles Oppermann wrote:
  
  And what about content that does not confirm to W3C recommendations?  For
  example, importing a web page that contains <BGSOUND> or Netscape's <LAYER>
  tag.  Should the markup be discarded?
  
  In keeping with my previous message:  What is the problem that this
  checkpoint is solving?  What are some other solutions to that problem?
  
  Charles Oppermann
  Program Manager, Accessibility and Disabilities Group
  Microsoft Corporation
  http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 25 February 1999 00:15:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:54 GMT