- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:53:02 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, WAI PF group <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > I can't speak for PF, but personally I very strongly disagree with the > reasons for reducing the priority or removing the requirement. Further > comments below. [snip] > 3. This is a repair requirement for poor authoring practices and including > the requirement will continue to support poor authoring practices > > True, but only in the sense that including the requirement means that users > can get acess to content even if authors are bad at what they do. It seems > likely that some authors will always use poor practices, so some users will > always need to be able to make use of repair functions. And good authoring > practices are in this context close to being just another repair function. This version of UAAG 1.0 intentionally does not include much in the way of repair functionality. Is there a reason why this (if it's considered repair) should have more weight than other repair features that have not been included? I don't think that "authors will always do the wrong thing" is a good reason to push the requirement to user agent developers. We have a hard enough time getting specs implemented properly. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 16:53:06 UTC