i won't be able to attend as i have a ridiculous meeting. just assign all the outstanding action items to me. :P -----Original Message----- From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:55 PM To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Subject: Agenda Thursday, 15 March, 2100 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM Friday Eastern Australia), on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038. Agenda: 1. What should we call the three levels of requirements enunciated in the guidelines (in particular the "technology-specific" ones)? At the face to face meeting, there was opposition to calling them "techniques". Several proposals have been mentioned on different occasions, including: a. Guidelines / checkpoints / technology-specific checkpoints (this proposal was rejected in an earlier meeting). b. Categories / guidelines / checkpoints (proposed by Gregg?) c. Guidelines / requirements / checkpoints (proposed by Charles); note that there is opposition to any use of the term "requirement" in the guidelines (this needs to be clarified as I am not sure who raised it; I think Wendy mentioned it at the meeting). 2. Should 2.1 be split into two checkpoints? 3. Should checkpoint 2.4 be dropped on account of its being a user agent requirement? 4. Action items from the face to face meeting. 5. Next meeting (who will be attending the CSUN conference next week?).Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 00:20:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT