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

RE: New checkpoint: identifying language

From: Tim Noonan <tnoonan@softspeak.com.au>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:57:18 +1000
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCEHLGAFEJEKBBCBADOGEEOADFAA.tnoonan@softspeak.com.au>
I inadvertently sent this reply to Wendy, rather than the list.

I think we should say natural (human) language.

I was doing some work for a major organisation on their compliance to
checkpoints, and none of them had realised what natural language meant until
I raised it.  They still thought it was an issue of HTML vs XML etc.

I was also going to raise it when I read the latest draft, but decided it
wasn't a major enough issue, but since its now come up, I would think we
should address it to some degree - for example, as I've proposed above.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
Sent: Saturday, 4 August 2001 3:24 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: New checkpoint: identifying language


We discussed a language checkpoint based on Gregory original proposal
[1].  This checkpoint was added to the 26 July 2001 draft as 1.4 with the
following text:
1.4 Identify the primary natural language of text and text equivalents and
all changes in natural language.

The only issue I have heard in regards to this checkpoint is the use of
"natural language."  Joe Clark suggests we say, "1.4 Identify the primary
human language of text and text equivalents and all changes in human
language. "

Does anyone disagree with Joe's proposal?
Is everyone happy with the premise of this checkpoint?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001AprJun/0495.html
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 17:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC