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

Re: WCAG 1.0 CP 6.1 Considered Harmful [violates: who does what]

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:21:15 +0100
Message-ID: <027c01c145ff$e3942b40$0bd993c3@y0r1d9>
To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> So predicating GL changes on PF and UA questions
> such as "should formats have a default presentation"
> and "should user agents have a default presentation for
> formats?" is premature in this venue at this time IMHO.

Really? PF seem to have agreed on the former question enough to have
published it in XML GL:-

[[[
3.1 Provide default style sheets for multiple output modalities where
possible.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlgl-20010829

We didn't tend to put things in XML GL that we didn't have at least a rough
consensus on (even with the "no endorement..." clause), and I don't recall
anyone causing a fuss about this particular checkpoint. If there had have
been a fuss, we should have delayed publication.

The latter question would also appear to be a bit of a no-brainer. In any
case, these are important questions and should they not have been answered,
then I think that it more than befits GL to give the groups a little/big
prod into action.

I think that one of the more important and relevant questions in this case
is actually, "how much is a default presentation a standard presentation?",
and that's something that is pertinent to the F2F agenda. And of course,
pre-reading and pre-dicussion (collectively: "preparation") is normally
nothing but useful.

Cheers,

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 16:22:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:14 GMT