W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Agenda

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:49:34 -0500 (EST)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103160848540.8148-100000@tux.w3.org>
Yes. It is an ongoing discussion of something that is fairly arbitrary. But
it is very difficult to discuss things if we don't have some common ways of
talking about them - like using the same names, and meaning the same things.


On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, William Loughborough wrote:

  At 12:54 PM 3/15/01 +1100, Jason White wrote:
  >At the face to face meeting, there was opposition to calling them "techniques"

  Why was this brought up?

  Was there support for calling them "techniques"?

  Isn't it a bit late to be changing this since the consensus was reached a
  few years ago? Where were the "opposition" then?

  The words "techniques document" although referring to a non-normative item
  might themselves be normative?

  Isn't this like the argument we resolved about "principles" vs. "guidelines"?


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 08:49:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC