W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

RE: ISSUE-66 Change Proposal: be more explicit about potential repair techniques

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:58:51 -0800
To: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002c01cac0ad$a40337f0$ec09a7d0$@org>
> I guess I should also ask: how do others who supported Matt's
> Change Proposal, or some compromise version, feel about this

(a) editorial: I don't think any of the proposals make any
    any changes to normative requirements for any class of
    agent or content. 

(b) Modularity: having overlapping but different recommendations
   or advice in the HTML spec and the UAAG seems counter to the
   goal of modularity of specifications and allowing independent
   evolution of the main line of HTML implementation advice vs.
   specific user agent accessibility advice.

On both these grounds, I think the original change proposal
to just remove the sentence is better.

I think as a separate issue:

An explicit reference to UAAG 1.0 and a note that WAI is working
on UAAG 2.0 with a pointer to http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag.html
would be better; making UAAG 1.0 and its successors a SHOULD 
normative requirement would be even better.

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 23:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC