W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Dating conformance Re: URI correction Re: minutes posted

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:00:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0001202258560.25375-100000@tux.w3.org>
If there are two contradictory Recommendations then as I understand the
process there is currently no way to say that the first is no longer
recommended practise. Although I am happy to be wrong. I guess the [process
question is more a W3C internal one, although whether we want to follow it up
is a working group issue...

Charles McCN


  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > 
  > If the working group changes the requirements, for example by publishing WCAG
  > 1.1 or 2.0 or something, then one of the things we could do is explicitly
  > request that WCAG 1.0 be moved from Recommendation Status to former
  > recommendation or obsolete recommendation or something. 
  > There curently isn't
  > such a thing in the process of W3C, so it would need to be approved by the
  > Advisory Council/Committee (I don't recall what they are at the minute -
  > basically the members) but if it is a good idea then we have a duty to ask
  > for it anyway.
  
Then On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
  I don't agree. There's no need to require new process. You just
  tell the AC during the review that document A will obsolete document
  B and they agree to that or they done.
  
   - Ian
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia 
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 23:00:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT