W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Issue 556 and 669 (and 506 definition of structure)

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 21:21:54 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000038321290@spamarrest.com>

Using something in the informative section as an example is one thing.  But
if we put an example in a definition, -- and the definition is of a term
that is in level 1, - then by definition, that is an example of what is
required in level 1.

So we should not put examples in definitions that are not level 1 examples
unless the term only appears in lower level items.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 8:05 PM
To: John M Slatin
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue 556 and 669 (and 506 definition of structure)

John M Slatin writes:
 > I think we could add an SVG example without implying that all graphics
 > have to be SVG to conform-- though we might have to say that out loud:-)

I agree. More general I think we should clarify somewhere that
examples given in a definition or in the guidelines are meant to be
informative, not normative, and we could say by way of illustration
that the example of vector-based graphics under guideline 1.3 should
not be interpreted as precluding the use of raster-based images in
appropriate circumstances.

I would also raise the question of whether we need a section entitled
"how to interpret these guidelines".
Received on Sunday, 16 May 2004 22:22:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC