W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: dependent/independent

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:32:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980616112434.5328B-100000@shell.clark.net>

Perhaps the idea below should take the form of an automatic message
generated to the author of a site with a link to an url that explains the
benefits of compliance?  Often a site developper is just getting round to
understand the intricacies of a new format or a new revission of an old
one as is the current condition.

Annother stab at this is automatic vallidation when errors of this nature
are detected with the results sent to the author or developper.  Often
though it might not be possible to asscertain who that might be <grin>
 

 On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, William Loughborough
wrote: <snipped to target of comment>
> WL::  Although I understand that this will continue to be done, it is so
> unacceptable that we must (even at the risk of appearing ridiculous) say
> something more like: "If both these sources are omitted, the author and
> the vendor of whatever tool he used should be notified that they are in
> violation of the law and that the host server owner for this web site is
> urged to remove this from the Web for repair."
> -- 
> Love.
>             ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
> http://dicomp.pair.com
> 

Hands-On-Technolog(eye)s
touching the internet
voice: 1-(301) 949-7599
poehlman@clark.net
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
http://www.clark.net/pub/poehlman
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 1998 11:33:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:20 UTC