- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:16:47 -0400
- To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
- Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Hello Greg, Thank you for your comments on WCAG 2.0 [1]. This email shows how the WCAG WG has attempted to address one of your concerns. We will send a separate email for each of the issues you raised. Please let us know if we have adequately addressed your issues. Issue 700 [2] Greg Lowney writes: 54. Guideline 3.2 "if contracted forms of words are used such that they are ambiguous, provide semantic markup to make words unique and interpretable" 54.a. [LOW PRIORITY] This guideline is not clear to me. What are examples of ambiguous contracted words? 54.b. [COMMENT] If we're going to require markup to disambiguate contractions, why not non-contracted words that have ambiguous meanings? Other than the fact that it'd be a lot of work to comply, that is. === In the March 11, 2004 Working Draft [3], this was reworded to "The meaning of contracted words can be programmatically determined. [I] " Does this address the issue? Thank you, --wendy [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2003Nov/0003.html> [2] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=700> [3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/#meaning> -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 18:33:52 UTC