W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > May 2001

Re: 17 May 2001 WCAG WG minutes

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:42:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
cc: WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0105180838020.30139-100000@tux.w3.org>
As I understand it, the WAI glossary itself is not a normative document.
(Otherwise, we woulod have to be planning to make it a Recommendation).
However, I believe that at least AU and WCAG have agreed to use it as the
source for their glossary definitions, and to cooperate on having single
definitions for each term they use.

When a normative document is published, such as WCAG 2.0 as a
Reecommendation, it will include terms from the glossary that are as written
in the glossary. The noramitve  definition, for the purposes of the document,
will be the one in the document. But the closer we can get the agreement on
terms across different documents, the easier it will be for people to use a
specification. The best possible result of course is that W3C uses a single,
consistent vocabulary across all its documents. I suspect that this is
impossible due to the nature of language, but we can probably approach it to
a reasonable extent.



On Thu, 17 May 2001, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:


  17 May 2001 WCAG WG minutes

         WAI glossary normative or not?

  Len Kasday
  /* a moment of silence */
  We'll miss you, Len!
Yes, very much.

         WAI glossary normative or not?
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 08:42:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:26 UTC