W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:51:11 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0505261648220.9910@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> RE Cascading Dictionary

> Thus, we should not put the cascading dictionary into the standard if 
> there are no implementations of it.  Toward that end I suggest that 
> those interested in exploring this approach form a subgroup and actually 
> come up with three implementations at three different websites to 
> demonstrate practicality.

Do you mean *invent* or *locate* three different sites?

And keep in mind our skill-testing question in all linguistics-related 
guidelines: Can I make this work right now in Maltese or Estonian?



> In fact this would probably be a good test for any level 1 guideline. If 
> among our crew and others advocating web accessibility we can not come 
> up with three sites of any size which include one site of significance 
> size, and then we should seriously question its conclusion.

My sentiments exactly. And since the mighty cochair has said it, I trust 
it will now be heeded.


> RE Wording of "Mechanism for locating definition"
>
> Therefore suggest this guideline be re-written as for those languages 
> where a free and stable online dictionary of the language exists.

The mechanism for locating a definition is to use your own dictionary. 
It's not to impose a requirement on me the author to give you one. Do we 
also have to write browsers for people?

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --This.
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 16:51:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC