Tim, I added proposals for short sections on "extensions" and "deprecated requirements" at the end. ----------- The following were APPROVED at today's meeting: (1) Change wording of line: FROM A rationale for the checkpoint. (Normative) TO A rationale for the checkpoint. (Informative) (2) Move section 3 material above Guidelines. (3) Add the following line to the conformance scheme: Note: Conforming to a higher level (e.g. Double-"A") automatically entails conformance to a lower level (e.g. Single-"A") as well. ----------- The following is PENDING: (4) Replacing the conformance scheme figure with: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JanMar/att-0084/conformance.png ----------- The following are PROPOSALS for group comment (JR's action items): (5) Add new section to the conformance scheme: Extensions: ATAG 2.0 does not limit the creative development of authoring tool functionality. A conforming authoring tool may have any range of features as long as all of the features have been implemented with accessible authoring interfaces and the required accessibility-related functionality is present. (6) Add new section to the conformance scheme: Deprecated Requirements: Some functionality is required to conform to ATAG 1.0, but not to ATAG 2.0. The only truly deprecated requirements in ATAG 2.0 are those inherited by changes between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 (currently still a draft). For these changes see [WCAG deprecated requirements list?]. ----------- Cheers, Jan -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Specialist Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca Phone: 416-946-7060 Fax: 416-971-2896Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 21:55:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:05 GMT
