W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: REF 3.1 TAKE 2 - Add specificity to required checkpoint.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@wiscmail.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:31:08 -0500
To: "'Kerstin Goldsmith'" <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>, gv@trace.wisc.edu
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <004901c346a4$779c78f0$056fa8c0@USD320002X>
This list referred to is itself a list of word that do not need expanding.
(or rather a list of examples of things that wouldn't)

I don't think it is possible to create a complete list of those that should
be expanded.  


Those that do not need expanding would be in the dictionary and could be
pulled from the dictionary. 


Does this help.


 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 




Are we going to create a similar list for the abbreviations and acronyms
that would not need expanding?


Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

It has come to my attention that my note is ambiguous.  I have changed it
therefore to fix the impression that foreign words are not allowed.  It was
meant to say that they must be marked if they are not in the dictionary. 

 REF - 3.1     Add specificity to required checkpoint.



Suggest that we add the following to the end of the first success criteria.


"Foreign words or phrases that are found in standard unabridged dictionaries
for the natural language of the content do not need to be marked.  (For a
list of common examples of exceptions for different languages, see the
W3C-WAI foreign word exception examples listing at [insert URL].)"


Note: these lists do not currently exist - but could be easily generated as
examples so people would know what we mean.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 01:36:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:45 UTC