- From: <goliver@accease.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:46:13 -0800 (PST)
- To: charles@w3.org
- Cc: GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Yeah That's why I suggested steering clear of that altogether (using 'default'). My suggested wording for the checkpoint being 'Ensure that all content remains available when stylistic and scripting technologies are not supported or are turned off.' Cheers Graham On Mon, 18 February 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote > > Because that is what we really mean when we are trying to define "default > installation", I think. > > cheers > > Chaals > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 goliver@accease.com wrote: > > Hi Charles > > > Basically I agree with Graham, but I don't think we > can really sort this out > > without resolution on baseline requirements. > > Why? > > Cheers > Graham > > AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible > Phone : +64 9 846 6995 > Email : goliver@accease.com > > > -- > 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) AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible Phone : +64 9 846 6995 Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 06:46:47 UTC