W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Proposal for Checkpoint 2.1

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:00:23 -0500
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Message-ID: <852568D3.0000ECFF.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>



Phill wrote:
> 1. Alternative ... primary content
>      we are not asking for alternative to attributes are we?? - of course
> not.

Ian wrote:
>I don't understand your statement.

If we define content to include attributes, then the statement:
> 1. Alternative equivalents should be available through the User Interface
> in place of or in conjunction with primary content

would also mean "alternative equivalents to attributes should be available
through the User Interface in place of or in conjunction with the primary
attributes" - which no longer makes sense.   I was just substituting the
word "attribute" for the word "content", since attribute is currently part
of the definition of content.  If attribute we NOT part of the definition,
then I couldn't substitute the words.  My point being that when I
substitute the word "attribute" for the word "content", many of our
statements no longer make sense - hence my request to delete attributes
from the definition of content.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 20:10:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:03 GMT