w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from January to March 2001 by author

Adam Victor Reed

• Question on content relevance (Friday, 30 March)
• Request to Join (Wednesday, 28 March)

Al Gilman

• FYI: review and repair of Web interface to W3C email archives (Thursday, 22 March)
• Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation) (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: [webwatch] Tabbing to Non-Actionable Elements on a Page (Sunday, 18 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (Friday, 16 March)
• [side note] Physics dissertations (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Wednesday, 14 March)
• What semantics? [was: Re: distraction: bane or content?] (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Focus ambiguity problem (Saturday, 10 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (process) (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (venue?) (Thursday, 8 March)
• distraction: bane or content? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: What does "for example" mean [ was summary attribute required? history. (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: transitional vs strict (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• content control: other precedents besides OBJECT element in HTML4 (Sunday, 4 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (new window) (Sunday, 4 March)
• RE: [webwatch] Tables, yet again (Friday, 2 March)
• Re: summary attribute required? history. (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives (Monday, 12 February)
• Re: A question of titles (Thursday, 1 February)
• Re: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: wcag2.0 discussion? (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: wcag2.0 discussion? (Friday, 26 January)
• Re: Can the W3C HML validaor send email when the page becomes invalid (was Re: WWW: Interoperability Crisis?) (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Friday, 19 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Re: RDF in html:address (Friday, 5 January)
• terms for pictures and such (both coarse and fine categories, related) (Friday, 5 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Fwd: RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Monday, 1 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Monday, 1 January)

Andi Snow-Weaver

• Regrets for today's call (Thursday, 22 March)

Anne Pemberton

• Re: New Guideline proposal was: Re: Some more thoughts re 3.3 etc. (Friday, 30 March)
• RE: 28 March 2001 working draft (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: Question on content relevance (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: 28 March 2001 working draft (Thursday, 29 March)
• RE: 28 March 2001 working draft (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: 28 March 2001 working draft (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: 28 March 2001 working draft (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re:demo (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Re: [side note] Physics dissertations (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation) (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1 (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: <HR> (was Re: Fleet Boston's...) (fwd) (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: demo (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: guideline guide (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Friday, 16 February)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Friday, 16 February)
• Re: First draft test plan/procedures (Thursday, 15 February)
• Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 (Monday, 12 February)
• Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 (Saturday, 10 February)
• Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 (Saturday, 10 February)
• Re: The web processing model: ideas for an introduction (Friday, 26 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Tuesday, 23 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Subsumation (Sunday, 14 January)
• Re: Fwd: Indicating Compliance (Saturday, 13 January)
• Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Re: Numerology/Guidelines (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Re: terms for pictures and such (both coarse and fine categories, related) (Saturday, 6 January)
• Re: Terminology for Pictures and Stuff (was: Revised List) (Friday, 5 January)
• Re: Terminology for Pictures and Stuff (was: Revised List) (Friday, 5 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Wednesday, 3 January)

Annuska Perkins

• RE: schedule for WCAG 2.0? (Wednesday, 14 February)
• schedule for WCAG 2.0? (Tuesday, 13 February)

Bailey, Bruce

• RE: 28 March 2001 working draft (Thursday, 29 March)
• RE: regrets due to csun (Friday, 16 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Wednesday, 14 March)
• RE: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Wednesday, 7 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Tuesday, 6 March)
• RE: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• RE: check out this page (Wednesday, 7 February)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Wednesday, 17 January)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (Wednesday, 3 January)

Brian Kelly

• Re: Can the W3C HML validaor send email when the page becomes invalid (was Re: WWW: Interoperability Crisis?) (Tuesday, 23 January)

by way of Wendy A Chisholm

• Accesskey does not work on my OS (Sunday, 1 April)
• Test Case for grouping of Links and whitespace (Saturday, 24 March)
• color names - CSS techniques for WCAG (Wednesday, 7 March)
• [Moderator Action] Re: Color Blindness (Monday, 5 March)
• PDF and Accessibility (Wednesday, 10 January)
• Re: [Moderator Action] Additional Requirements for Conformance (Wednesday, 3 January)

Charles McCathieNevile

• checklink and javascript: URI scheme (was Re: Code: 501 Protocol scheme 'javascript' is not supported) (fwd) (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Thursday, 22 March)
• Re: Agenda (Wednesday, 21 March)
• Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation) (Monday, 19 March)
• Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0 (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: regrets due to csun (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Agenda (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: regrets due to csun (Friday, 16 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• [getting off topic] RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: imagemaps (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Monday, 12 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (Sunday, 11 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Saturday, 10 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• RE: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: <HR> (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (venue?) (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: <HR> (was Re: Fleet Boston's...) (fwd) (Thursday, 8 March)
• Various forms of simple WCAG intro Re: Action Item (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.] (Monday, 5 March)
• RE: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• transitional vs strict was RE: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Monday, 19 February)
• Techniques for using Metadata (Sunday, 18 February)
• Frames techniques (Sunday, 18 February)
• Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives (Monday, 12 February)
• Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 (Monday, 12 February)
• last part of minutes from thursday (Sunday, 4 February)
• (Small chunk of) WCAG minutes 2001.02.01 (fwd) (Sunday, 4 February)
• 15 minutes of notes (fwd) (Sunday, 4 February)
• Re: another use case for RDF (Thursday, 1 February)
• Re: wcag2.0 discussion? (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: Colorblindness references (Tuesday, 30 January)
• Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Tuesday, 23 January)
• RE: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Sunday, 21 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Saturday, 20 January)
• Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Friday, 19 January)
• Re: Minutes from 18 January 2001 WCAG WG Telecon (Friday, 19 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Equivalence, was Re: Subsumation (Sunday, 14 January)
• Re: "Freak Cases Warrant Generalization"... (Sunday, 14 January)
• Re: Subsumation (Sunday, 14 January)
• Re: ACTION: review the 12 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 (Saturday, 13 January)
• Re: Fwd: Indicating Compliance (Friday, 12 January)
• Re: PDF and Accessibility (Friday, 12 January)
• Re: Quick question (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Monday, 8 January)
• SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Sunday, 7 January)
• RE: QUESTION: use of JavaScript to comply with Sect 508 (fwd) (Sunday, 7 January)
• Re: ALT with INPUT (Saturday, 6 January)
• Re: Template for making techniques; (Friday, 5 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (Friday, 5 January)
• Re: terms for pictures and such (both coarse and fine categories, related) (Friday, 5 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: RDF in html:address (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: SVG Data Technique (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Latest List (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Latest List (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: regrets for tomorrow's call (Wednesday, 3 January)
• RE: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: HTML and XHTML techniques (Tuesday, 2 January)
• HTML and XHTML techniques (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: FW: Heh Heh Heh... NAVIGATE THIS IF YOU CAN! (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)

Christian Smith

• RE: [webwatch] Tables, yet again (Friday, 2 March)

Chuck Baslock

• CSS Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Friday, 16 March)

Constantine Stephanidis

• Call for Papers: New international journal UNIVERSAL ACCESS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY (Tuesday, 30 January)

Cynthia Shelly

• probable regrets for tomorrow (Thursday, 22 March)
• RE: Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion) (Tuesday, 6 March)
• RE: [TECHS] Re: Latest List (Friday, 9 February)
• regrets for today's call (Thursday, 8 February)
• regrets for Thursday's call (Monday, 22 January)
• RE: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Friday, 19 January)
• RE: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0 (Tuesday, 16 January)
• regrets for tomorrow's call (Wednesday, 3 January)
• RE: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)

Daniel Dardailler

• Comments of WCAG 2.0 draft (Friday, 23 February)
• Re: [Moderator Action] Question about your site. (Tuesday, 6 February)

David Poehlman

• wcag2.0 discussion? (Friday, 26 January)

Dick Brown

• Dick Brown signing off (Thursday, 29 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (Monday, 5 March)
• Regrets for 2-22 and action item on UA capabilities (Thursday, 22 February)
• RE: Agenda (Thursday, 8 February)
• Colorblindness references (Friday, 26 January)
• Colorblindness references (Thursday, 25 January)

Donovan Hipke

• RE: Agenda (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: [TECHS] Re: Latest List (Sunday, 11 February)
• Regrets (Thursday, 11 January)
• RE: Latest List (Wednesday, 3 January)

Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo

• RE: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Wednesday, 24 January)

Gregg Vanderheiden

• RE: 28 March 2001 working draft (Friday, 30 March)
• General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety (Sunday, 25 March)
• FW: Section 508 resource (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Regrets due to csun (Tuesday, 20 March)
• RE: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0 (Tuesday, 20 March)
• Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0 (Friday, 16 March)
• check out this page (Wednesday, 7 February)
• RE: Practical considerations and 1.0 [ was Agenda (Sunday, 28 January)
• RE: Contrast (Sunday, 28 January)
• RE: The web processing model: ideas for an introduction (Sunday, 28 January)
• RE: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Saturday, 20 January)
• Agenda for Thursday's Teleconference Meeting (Tuesday, 2 January)
• acronyms (Tuesday, 2 January)
• FW: Heh Heh Heh... NAVIGATE THIS IF YOU CAN! (Tuesday, 2 January)
• RE: interesting one for text equivalence (Tuesday, 2 January)

Harvey Bingham

• Fwd: No disability in Digitalized Community (Monday, 15 January)

Ian Jacobs

• Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0 (Tuesday, 16 January)

Jason White

• Re: what type of document do we want? (Saturday, 31 March)
• Agenda (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety (Monday, 26 March)
• Agenda (Wednesday, 21 March)
• Agenda (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Thursday, 8 March)
• WCAG teleconference schedule (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Agenda (Tuesday, 20 February)
• Agenda (Wednesday, 14 February)
• Reminder: W3C plenary (face to face meeting) registration due by 15 February (Tuesday, 13 February)
• Re: new draft of technology-specific checkpoints (Thursday, 8 February)
• Agenda (Tuesday, 6 February)
• Agenda (Tuesday, 30 January)
• The web processing model: ideas for an introduction (Thursday, 25 January)
• Issues arising from checkpoint map: some suggestions (Thursday, 25 January)
• RE: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Thursday, 25 January)
• Agenda (Wednesday, 24 January)
• Agenda (Wednesday, 17 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Re: WCAG 2.0: Linear or Fractal? [was: Re: On Further Consideration] (Wednesday, 10 January)
• Agenda (Wednesday, 10 January)
• Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Sunday, 7 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Sunday, 7 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Sunday, 7 January)

Jeff Isom

• Re: Some more thoughts re 3.3 etc. (Friday, 30 March)

Jim Thatcher

• RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Wednesday, 14 March)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Wednesday, 14 February)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Wednesday, 14 February)
• RE: ALT with INPUT (Sunday, 7 January)

Joe Clark

• Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? ] (Wednesday, 7 March)

Jonathan Chetwynd

• Re:demo (Saturday, 17 March)
• without even a word, And plenty of vision. was:Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)

Josh Krieger

• RE: imagemaps (Wednesday, 14 March)
• imagemaps (Wednesday, 14 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (Sunday, 4 March)
• Joining Web Content Guidelines Working Group (Tuesday, 13 February)

Kathy Conron

• WAI guidelines (Tuesday, 2 January)

Katie Haritos-Shea

• My action items: Katie (Thursday, 15 March)
• FW: Languages and 508 for the Web (Wednesday, 14 February)
• Languages and 508 for the Web (Wednesday, 14 February)
• 508 (Wednesday, 14 February)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Tuesday, 13 February)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Tuesday, 13 February)
• FW: Accessibility (Thursday, 8 February)
• RE: Another stab (Thursday, 11 January)
• FW: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Revised List of Technologies (Tuesday, 2 January)

Kynn Bartlett

• Re: Question on content relevance (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: Agenda (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety (Monday, 26 March)
• Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0 (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0 (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: regrets due to csun (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Agenda (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Thursday, 15 March)
• RE: imagemaps (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: imagemaps (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1 (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1 (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Monday, 12 March)
• Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Monday, 12 March)
• Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions) (Monday, 12 March)
• Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation) (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Saturday, 10 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.] (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: Crawling ants? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Crawling ants? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Crawling ants? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion) (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.] (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: What does "for example" mean [ was summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Friday, 16 February)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Wednesday, 14 February)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Wednesday, 14 February)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Tuesday, 13 February)
• Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives (Monday, 12 February)
• RE: [TECHS] Re: Latest List (Friday, 9 February)
• [TECHS] Re: Latest List (Friday, 9 February)
• Re: The web processing model: ideas for an introduction (Saturday, 3 February)
• Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: wcag2.0 discussion? (Wednesday, 31 January)
• RE: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Friday, 19 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Wednesday, 17 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Monday, 15 January)
• RE: [w3c-wai-gl] <none> (Monday, 15 January)
• Re: Fwd: Indicating Compliance (Friday, 12 January)
• Fwd: Indicating Compliance (Friday, 12 January)
• Terminology for Pictures and Stuff (was: Revised List) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Thursday, 4 January)
• Kynn's regrets for tomorrow's call (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: HTML and XHTML techniques (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: WAI guidelines (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)
• List of Technologies (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Monday, 1 January)

Leonard R. Kasday

• CSS bug list (Thursday, 29 March)
• regrets due to csun (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Agenda (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Tuesday, 13 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Thursday, 8 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.] (Thursday, 8 March)
• Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.] (Monday, 5 March)
• What does "for example" mean [ was summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• Re: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• Table rendering bug on IG list [was Aaargh ... ] (Tuesday, 13 February)
• Practical considerations and 1.0 [ was Agenda (Thursday, 25 January)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Wednesday, 17 January)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Wednesday, 17 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Wednesday, 17 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Wednesday, 17 January)
• Don't require <Q> (Monday, 15 January)
• Re: Fwd: Indicating Compliance (Monday, 15 January)
• Writing to screen by Javascript (Saturday, 13 January)
• RE: PDF and Accessibility (Friday, 12 January)
• Re: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Checkpoint on testability (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)

Lisa Seeman

• Re: Agenda (Thursday, 29 March)
• Fw: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Crawling ants? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: javascript and URLs (Sunday, 4 March)
• my first contribution to the techniques with attachments (Thursday, 1 March)
• my first contribution to the techniques (Thursday, 1 March)
• March FTF (Sunday, 25 February)
• Fw: Responding (Tuesday, 13 February)
• Re: another use case for RDF (Thursday, 1 February)
• Re: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: Colorblindness references (Tuesday, 30 January)
• Re: Colorblindness reference omission (Sunday, 28 January)
• Re: Colorblindness references (Sunday, 28 January)
• Re: Contrast (Sunday, 28 January)
• process of a site development (Thursday, 25 January)
• Contrast (Thursday, 25 January)
• Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Thursday, 25 January)
• Re: Agenda (Wednesday, 24 January)
• Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Tuesday, 23 January)
• Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Tuesday, 23 January)
• Quick question (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Template for making techniques; (Friday, 5 January)
• Re: Latest List (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• interesting one for text equivalence (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Tuesday, 2 January)

Loretta Guarino Reid

• regrets for next week (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Tuesday, 2 January)

Marja-Riitta Koivunen

• Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1 (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1 (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Monday, 12 March)
• class definitions and grouping - example 1 (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: "Freak Cases Warrant Generalization"... (Wednesday, 7 February)

Marti

• Some more thoughts re 3.3. etc. (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: 28 March 2001 working draft (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• First draft test plan/procedures (Thursday, 15 February)
• Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 (Saturday, 10 February)
• Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 (Saturday, 10 February)
• some thoughts on testing of techniques (Friday, 9 February)
• Suggested addition to 1.1 (Thursday, 8 February)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Tuesday, 2 January)

Matt May

• New Guideline proposal was: Re: Some more thoughts re 3.3 etc. (Friday, 30 March)
• regrets (Thursday, 22 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: javascript and URLs (Sunday, 11 March)
• Deprecated was: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: color names - CSS techniques for WCAG (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: Crawling ants? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: process of a site development (Friday, 26 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Tuesday, 2 January)

Mike Paciello

• RE: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message----- (Tuesday, 6 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Tuesday, 6 March)
• RE: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• RE: transitional vs strict was RE: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• RE: summary attribute required? history. (Monday, 5 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (Sunday, 4 March)
• WCAG Equivalent for Section 508's 1194.22, "P" requirement (Tuesday, 2 January)

Paul Bohman

• what type of document do we want? (Friday, 30 March)

Ricardo Sánchez

• ALT with INPUT( No image type) (Sunday, 7 January)
• RE: ALT with INPUT (Sunday, 7 January)
• RE: ALT with INPUT (Sunday, 7 January)

Robert Neff

• Software Engineering Institute (Sunday, 4 March)
• javascript and URLs (Saturday, 3 March)
• RE: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• RE: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• RE: process of a site development (Friday, 26 January)
• RE: process of a site development (Friday, 26 January)
• Re: regrets for Thursday's call (Tuesday, 23 January)
• Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Sunday, 21 January)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Wednesday, 17 January)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• RE: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• RE: Testing and 508 (Tuesday, 16 January)
• RE: [w3c-wai-gl] <none> (Monday, 15 January)
• microsoft rep (Friday, 12 January)
• RE: PDF and Accessibility (Friday, 12 January)
• RE: PDF and Accessibility (Wednesday, 10 January)
• Re: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Sunday, 7 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Sunday, 7 January)
• Re: regrets for tomorrow's call (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Monday, 1 January)

Saundra-Kae Rubel

• [w3c-wai-gl] <none> (Monday, 15 January)

Sean B. Palmer

• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: <HR> (was Re: Fleet Boston's...) (fwd) (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: <HR> (Thursday, 8 March)
• Re: color names - CSS techniques for WCAG (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments (Thursday, 1 March)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Friday, 16 February)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Thursday, 15 February)
• Vector Graphical Alternatives (Monday, 12 February)
• [TECHS] Re: Latest List (Friday, 9 February)
• Re: Colorblindness references (Sunday, 28 January)
• Setting a Clear Enough Goal (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Saturday, 20 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• FYI: WCAG Popularity/All SVG site (Sunday, 14 January)
• "Freak Cases Warrant Generalization"... (Saturday, 13 January)
• Re: Subsumation (Saturday, 13 January)
• Re: Regrets (Thursday, 11 January)
• Re: WCAG 2.0: Linear or Fractal? [was: Re: On Further Consideration] (Wednesday, 10 January)
• WCAG 2.0: Linear or Fractal? [was: Re: On Further Consideration] (Wednesday, 10 January)
• Web Accessibility in Popular Culture (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: RDF in html:address (Saturday, 6 January)
• RDF in html:address (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media) (Thursday, 4 January)
• SVG Data Technique (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Latest List (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Update 3: List of Technologies and Volunteers (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: HTML and XHTML techniques (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Tuesday, 2 January)

Steven McCaffrey

• Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Thursday, 15 February)

Wendy A Chisholm

• Regrets for next week's meetings (Friday, 30 March)
• 29 March 2001 WCAG WG minutes (Friday, 30 March)
• Re: 28 March 2001 working draft (Thursday, 29 March)
• 28 March 2001 working draft (Wednesday, 28 March)
• Re: Request to Join (Wednesday, 28 March)
• 22 March 2001 WCAG WG Minutes (Thursday, 22 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Wednesday, 21 March)
• RE: Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions) (Wednesday, 21 March)
• Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation) (Monday, 19 March)
• Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation) (Friday, 16 March)
• RE: javascript and URLs (Friday, 16 March)
• Reminder: W3C Quality Assurance Workshop position paper deadline is today (Friday, 16 March)
• 15 March 2001 WCAG WG minutes (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: [Moderator Action] Request to Join (Thursday, 15 March)
• [ECMA/JavaScript] Fwd: Call for Submissions: JavaScripts Sharing in User Interface Proto typing (Thursday, 15 March)
• Minutes from 2 March 2001 F2F (Thursday, 8 March)
• Summary of WCAG 2.0 comments - 25 January 2001 draft (Wednesday, 7 March)
• 01 March 2001 F2F meeting minutes (AU/ERT/WCAG) (Wednesday, 7 March)
• 22 February 2001 WCAG WG Telecon minutes (Thursday, 22 February)
• Re: Techniques for using Metadata (Monday, 19 February)
• 15 February 2001 WCAG WG minutes (Thursday, 15 February)
• updated Checkpoint mapping (Thursday, 15 February)
• Re: Agenda (Wednesday, 14 February)
• Re: schedule for WCAG 2.0? (Wednesday, 14 February)
• 08 February 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes (Thursday, 8 February)
• Minutes from 1 February 2001 telecon (Thursday, 8 February)
• new draft of technology-specific checkpoints (Wednesday, 7 February)
• Minutes from 25 January 2001 telecon (Tuesday, 6 February)
• Re: [Moderator Action] Question about your site. (Tuesday, 6 February)
• fyi - i love stats (Tuesday, 23 January)
• "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Monday, 22 January)
• RE: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Saturday, 20 January)
• 20 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 published (Saturday, 20 January)
• Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft (Friday, 19 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Friday, 19 January)
• Minutes from 18 January 2001 WCAG WG Telecon (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0 (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Don't require <Q> (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Meeting page for MARCH face to face meetings (Monday, 15 January)
• Meeting page for February face to face meetings (Monday, 15 January)
• ACTION: review the 12 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 (Friday, 12 January)
• Minutes of 11 January 2001 WCAG WG telecon (Thursday, 11 January)
• Updated: WCAG 2.0 Open Issues List (Thursday, 11 January)
• 11 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 published (Thursday, 11 January)
• Re: Another stab (Thursday, 11 January)
• Re: Request to Join (Tuesday, 9 January)
• WCAG 1.0 errata updated, clarification of checkpoint 3.1 (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (Monday, 8 January)
• Minutes 04 January 2001 WCAG WG telecon (Saturday, 6 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Technical Plenary and WG Meeting Event, 26 February - 2 March 2001 (Tuesday, 2 January)

William Loughborough

• Re: 29 March 2001 WCAG WG minutes (Friday, 30 March)
• Jean-Marie and me (Friday, 30 March)
• apologies (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: CSS bug list (Thursday, 29 March)
• Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety (Tuesday, 27 March)
• Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0 (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: regrets due to csun (Friday, 16 March)
• Re: Agenda (Thursday, 15 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Wednesday, 14 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Tuesday, 13 March)
• Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style) (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions) (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: distraction: bane or content? (Monday, 12 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• Re: Layout tables (Friday, 9 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (venue?) (Thursday, 8 March)
• acknowledgements (Thursday, 8 March)
• demo (Thursday, 8 March)
• guideline guide (Wednesday, 7 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Action Item (Wednesday, 7 March)
• Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? ] (Wednesday, 7 March)
• vaporguides (Wednesday, 7 March)
• RE: What does "for example" mean (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Crawling ants? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• More crawling ants. (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Crawling ants? (Tuesday, 6 March)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Friday, 16 February)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Friday, 16 February)
• Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft (Thursday, 15 February)
• RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l) (Wednesday, 14 February)
• Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives (Monday, 12 February)
• Re: some thoughts on testing of techniques (Friday, 9 February)
• Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: process of a site development (Wednesday, 31 January)
• Re: Contrast (Sunday, 28 January)
• Re: Colorblindness references (Sunday, 28 January)
• Re: Contrast (Sunday, 28 January)
• Re: Colorblindness references (Sunday, 28 January)
• Re: Contrast (Friday, 26 January)
• Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities (Monday, 22 January)
• Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0 (Monday, 22 January)
• Perseverance Furthers (Friday, 19 January)
• Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs (Thursday, 18 January)
• Re: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0 (Tuesday, 16 January)
• Reaching? (Saturday, 13 January)
• Subsumation (Saturday, 13 January)
• Re: Another stab (Thursday, 11 January)
• Re: Another stab (Wednesday, 10 January)
• Another stab (Wednesday, 10 January)
• On Further Consideration (Wednesday, 10 January)
• Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider (Tuesday, 9 January)
• Numerology/Guidelines (Monday, 8 January)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?) (Sunday, 7 January)
• DIAP (Friday, 5 January)
• Re: Terminology for Pictures and Stuff (was: Revised List) (Thursday, 4 January)
• RE: Accessibility of web pages (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...) (Thursday, 4 January)
• Re: (won't william be glad?) (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: 3.7 in 1? (Wednesday, 3 January)
• Re: List of Technologies (Tuesday, 2 January)
• 3.7 in 1? (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: interesting one for text equivalence (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Tuesday, 2 January)
• Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block" (Monday, 1 January)

Last message date: Saturday, 31 March 2001 20:47:14 UTC