W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2000

Re: Priorities

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:01:29 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000125145500.00a2c470@localhost>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>

>
> > If the priority of the WCAG checkpoint is not inherited, then how do we
> > define priorities for this document?
> >
>The techniques should inherit the priority of the WCAG checkpoint.

ok.

then do we need a priority on each technique or can we just leave them on 
the checkpoint?  I guess if we want the techniques to stand on their own, 
then we should include priorities on techniques.

> > If we are expecting people to conform to it, then I think that implies we
> > want to take this to Recommendation status.  Do we want to take it to
> > Recommendation or release it as a Note?
> >
>What are the politics involved in taking it to a Recommendation? Would it
>slow us down?

I think we should ask what effect we want to have rather than how long it 
will take us to reach our goal.  As I see it, the question is, "is this 
document informative or normative?"  in other words are we creating 
something that acts as a guide for people who are creating E&R tools (a W3C 
Note), or is this something that they will want to conform to and become an 
industry "standard" (a W3C Recommendation). (probably not the best 
description of the differences...)

At this point, I think we are working towards a Note.  It seems to be 
supportive material for the other 3 guidelines documents (WCAG, ATAG, UAAG).

thoughts?

--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2000 15:01:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:34 GMT