- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:02:15 -0700
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
At 09:04 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Hmmm. Now if we had links from each checkpoint to tools taht can be used for
>that checkpoint, and information about each tool that said what checkpoints
>it tests for, that would indeed be cool...
WL: By Jove, I believe you've got it. Right at the moment I am hopeful that
this little table entry to the checkpoints can wag the dog so that when one
links from a checkpoint number in Checker the resulting location's links
aren't SO repetetive - if that doesn't happen I'll have to do all the links
within Checker. That however precludes the virtues of contiguity/lostness
of the sort that enables discoveries of unintended information acquisition.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 22 September 2000 11:04:01 UTC