Re: new draft published - please review

excellent.

>- 5.5.2 Table Captions - removed (not required by WCAG)

i added this per WCAG discussion.  I will add this back in.


>Should we remove the 'discussion status' sections? Every guideline is now
>under discussion.

in my edits I removed all of the discussion status sections except for 
those that had outstanding issues.  therefore, only a handful are "under 
discussion."  as discussed in a recent telecon, we are keeping the open 
issues inline in the document rather than having a separate open issues 
document.  discussion status may not be the best title.  perhps we ought to 
say, "open issues with this technique."

>I question whether we should check other linked documents as Len suggests
>(technique 1.1.9). For example, if an image has a LONGDESC link then we have
>to assume that the LONGDESC file is OK. The LONGDESC file may not be created
>yet. After all, the user is checking this file, not yet the other files.
>
>If we see that there is a linked file then we can ask if the user want's
>that one checked too. Make sense?

is this an issue that we need to resolve before sending this to AU, WCAG, 
and IG?


>I've made changes down to "@@CR - got to here"

I am concerned with how many @@'s we have in the document.  I would like to 
get rid of as many of these as possible before we send it to IG, AU, 
WCAG.  I think it is fine to leave those that mark significant open issues, 
but there are a couple places where it seems there is a mini dialog between 
Len and Chris!  <grin>

--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 16:22:21 UTC