W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Definition of REQUIRED

From: Alan J. Flavell <flavell@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:05:31 +0100 (BST)
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: GL - WAI Guidelines WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980415095050.9013A-100000@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

..
> We have asked for comment on these definitions - but have not gotten
> any that suggest other definitions or approaches. 

I'd just like to make it clear that I had no dispute with that
procedure as such; I was just worried that some of the remarks in the
guidelines _seemed_ to say (or might easily be misunderstood to be
saying) that this or that had the status of "required" in an HTML
specification, when the intention had been only to say that they are
considered "required" in the context of the guidelines. 

I was only trying to suggest some minor rewording of the relevant
sentences to clarify that - nothing more.

> Having said all this, I will say that this whole aspect is a bit
> murky. 

I didn't see a major problem at all.  Just a couple of issues - one,
the possibility for misunderstanding, and the other that there was a
section that had ended up containing a contradiction.

In the 0414 version, the various amendments seem to me to have
produced an entirely reasonable compromise that has avoided these
eariler problems.

(The guideline document still fails HTML validation though, for
reasons that could easily be corrected.)
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 1998 08:05:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:57 GMT