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

RE: 3.1 Techniques

From: ajudson <ajudson@computing.dundee.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:05:33 +0100
Message-ID: <31C6D68FA597D411B04D00E02965883B02566ED4@mailhost>
To: 'lisa seeman' <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "'WAI GL (E-mail)'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I'm with Lisa on this one & agree with your comments about simple language.
My understanding of why its not higher up the priority ladder is the
automatic testability requirement (and the target readership of the actual
site), though I may be wrong.

Lisa, if you need help on the rdf techniques document then give us a shout,
as you know this is right up our street.

There was an a thread on the wai-ig list not long ago about the use of
symbols, incase u missed it:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisa seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il] 
> Sent: 02 June 2004 10:23
> To: 'John M Slatin'; 'WAI GL (E-mail)'
> Subject: 3.1 Techniques
> Re: Making it possible to convert text into symbolic languages such as
> those used by Augmentative and Alternative Communication 
> (AAC) devices. 
> I noticed the following editorial note
> Editorial Note: js: say how-through metadata? And we need an 
> example for
> this one, under examples. Clearly a Level 3
> Please note we have concrete example in the RDF (resource description
> framework) techniques document.
> With 3.1 being meta data and RDF intensive, do we need the RDF
> techniques on the critical list for WCAG 2.0 release?
> If so I should probably start working on it again...
> All the best
> Lisa Seeman
> Visit us at the UB Access website
> UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 06:04:50 UTC

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