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

RE: Murky ratings

From: David Clark <dmclark@cast.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:49:54 -0400
To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001bd803a$a2822aa0$ca557392@dmc.cast.org>
I hope it's not too late for me to add my 2 cents....

Through this conversation it has become apparent, (at least to me), that we
are wanting the to fulfill two distinct purposes with the guidelines that
should  be separated.

1. Guidelines -  as in "best practices" that should assist the direction
(guide) of page authors.
2. Guidelines -  as in "requirements" which are necessary to fulfill.

I think our goal is 1, and the discussion of 2 should be handled by RC. If
this were the case, the database approach would be appropriate.

We would also might want to consider abandoning the "required" vs
"recommended" language.

David Clark
CAST, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From:	w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent:	Thursday, May 14, 1998 7:47 PM
To:	WAI Markup Guidelines
Subject:	Re: Murky ratings

Josh's suggested data base might be useful under some circumstances,
though it should not be part of the guidelines proper and would require
constant updating. I do not think there is need for pessimism at this
stage concerning the proper implementation of HTML 4.0 and CSS, since
by supporting these standards, W3C member organisations have made a
committed to complying with them. Furthermore, the motivation for doing so
will be increased by the normative value of the WAI user agent guidelines.
This kind of discussion would be more appropriate for the IG list,
however.
Received on Friday, 15 May 1998 15:47:34 GMT

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