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

RE: 4.1 wording

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:39:04 +0200
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <NGBBILMKELPGAHMOKABGKEMDCAAA.seeman@netvision.net.il>

Yes that is how we had left it. But I do not think it can go to TR as is

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:25 AM
To: Lisa Seeman
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 4.1 wording


Perhaps it would be best to agree first on what the success criteria
are for the three conformance levels; then return to the checkpoint
text itself to make sure that it is consistent with the success
criteria.

This strategy has worked in relation to some of the other checkpoints.

I think the real controversies surrounding 4.1 relate to what the
success criteria ought to be at each of the conformance levels. I also
expect that there will be much advisory material included under 4.1,
providing additional, non-testable but nonetheless useful, guidance to
implementors.
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 5/29/02

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 5/29/02
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 04:37:54 GMT

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