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

Re: Agenda

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:48:53 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108090937260.10655-100000@tux.w3.org>
Regrets - I will not be able to attend.


  1. Combining old checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 (i.e., whether "auditory
     descriptions" should occupy a separate checkpoint as Gregg has suggested).

Have just sent my thoughts on this.

  2. Checkpoint 2.1 (revised text as in forthcoming draft).

It is hard to comment without the draft. I request that this be postponed a
week.

  3. Whether checkpoint 4.1 is redundant (discussed at the close of last
     week's meeting).

I consider that 4.1 is important. I think there  is a case to be made that
being able to support P3 requirements is a P1 requirement - in essence that
it allows for some hope of improvement without having to do a complete
rebuild. Other possibilities include using the relative priority system that
ATAG has. In any event, I don't see anywhere that this checkpoint is marked
as P1.

  4. Any other issues that need to be resolved before the draft is
     released publicly via the TR page.

I think a "how to use this document" section should be included. I think this
group should use the definitions from the "combined glossary", noting in the
draft that these have not yet gained consensus within the working group -
they are generally better than "not yet defined". Neither of these should be
blocks for publication (since I can always send them as comments on the
draft) and I consider that the editors are smart enough t odo a first pass at
them that isn't too horrible without me having to read it again.

Cheers

Charles
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 10:45:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT