- From: Scott Hayman <shayman@rim.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:35:38 -0500
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Will Pearson" <will-pearson@tiscali.co.uk>, <www-svg@w3.org>
- Cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Hi Chaals, > From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com] > This concept of an "equivalent" (which is not necessarily > simply text) comes from, and is clearly described in the way > Will suggests in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines > [1], which are now a relatively old, stable and established > W3C Recommendation. I think that the requested change is > merely editorial (i.e. it could be done after the publication > of a Last Call draft, in the worst case, without requiring > explicit comment) but that it should be made. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#glossary The group agrees that this would be a valuable change to the spec. As such, we've added a link from the first mention of text equivalents to the definition of equivalent in WCAG. Regards, Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2005 20:35:51 UTC