RE: Resolutions on Changes to REQUIREMENTS DOC

In terms of:
S1 - Serving content in different forms in order to meet different user
needs or preferences is an acceptable way to comply with the guidelines,
--  as long as equivalents for all of the information are provided in
the different forms, it is up to date, and the information is available
from the same URI.  Having an accessible, findable link from the URI to
the alternate form is an acceptable approach.

all I have to say is that 
Having an accessible, findable link from the URI to the alternate form
is a necessity in order to comply with accessibility guidelines.

Cheers,
Gian



-----Original Message-----
From: GV [mailto:GV@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2002 4:35 PM
To: charles; wendy
Cc: w3c-wai-gl
Subject: RE: Resolutions on Changes to REQUIREMENTS DOC


Hi Charles,

S1 was supposed to state clearly that having a link to the accessible
version from the inaccessible version is allowed.  (That content
negotiation is not required).  

However, it is clear that the current wording was not clear.  

How about

S1 - Serving content in different forms in order to meet different user
needs or preferences is an acceptable way to comply with the guidelines,
--  as long as equivalents for all of the information are provided in
the different forms, it is up to date, and the information is available
from the same URI.  Having an accessible, findable link from the URI to
the alternate form is an acceptable approach.
(in short - Server side solutions are acceptable - if the accessible
forms are up-to-date and findable by going to the main URI.)


Gregg

-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 


> 
>   >  S1 - Serving content in different forms in order to meet
different user
>   >  needs or preferences is an acceptable way to comply with the
guidelines,
>   >  --  as long as equivalents for all of the information are
provided in
>   >  the different forms, and it is all available from the same URI.
>   >  (Accessible, findable links to alternate form(s) is allowed.)
(Server
>   >  side solutions are acceptable - as specified.)
>   >
>   >CMN This still seems unclear to me as a way of phrasing what we
mean. Does it
>   >mean every version must be content-negotiated, to keep the URI the
same (in
>   >parctice this doesn't work with existing systems, where a specific
version
>   >can come from a generic, content-negotiated URI, or can come from a
specific
>   >version URI), or does it mean that it must be possible (easy?) to
get from
>   >one version to another by some means?
>   >
>   >I therefore propose that we mark this as an issue still open until
we can
>   >produce (or the editors can propose) some wording that seems less
fuzzy
>   >
>   >Charles McCN
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61
409 134
> 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1
617 258 5999
> Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis
Cedex, France)