W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: VOTE

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 15:36:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205071531220.29703-100000@tux.w3.org>
I really like the way Loretta expressed the relationship, but I would like it
to be more explicit about the updagrade path. Something like

"Sites which conform to WCAG 1.0 may already conform to WCAG 2.0, since many
requirements are the same. However, not all sites will conform to both
guidelines. The checkpoint mapping will help in evaluating a site whose
conformance to WCAG 1.0 is already known."

(I would like simpler wording than that though - any offers?)

Cheers

Chaals

On Tue, 7 May 2002, Matt May wrote:

  I vote for #4.

  -
  m
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@Adobe.com>
  To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
  Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 9:53 PM
  Subject: Re: VOTE


  > After considering the 3 alternatives, I'm proposing ALTERNATE 4:
  >
  >
  > WCAG 2.0 is based on the same principles as WCAG 1.0. However, it
  > is designed to be less technology-specific so that it is clearer
  > and easier to apply those principles to a wide range of technologies.
  > The Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 Working Draft
  > shows the way that the principles of WCAG 1.0 have been generalized
  > in WCAG 2.0.
  >
  >
  > Loretta
  >


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 15:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT