- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:12:01 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org
> > I would favour a key word such as "!required" rather than > > "!accessibility". > > No, in many cases the UA will have to approximate values specified in > CSS declarations. The word "required" implies that if the demand can't > be met, something drastic will happen -- e.g. the page will not be > shown. This, in my mind, is incompatible with improving access to > information. > > I think "accessibility" is a little better, but not much. How about > "x-important" in the good tradition of T-shirts? x-important sounds too much like it's important but not yet approved by IANA :-) How about: "paramount" , or "supreme" or "eminent", or "highest"
Received on Monday, 22 December 1997 09:12:24 UTC