RE: Combining GL 3.1 L3 SC2 and 3

Wendy,

Thanks for the summary-- it's very clear, and I'm completely OK with the
group's decision to leave SC 2 and 3 separate. (Becky's proposal looks
good-- I've proposed a small editorial change for clrification,
otherwise it's fine.)
I accept the action item to propose two sufficient techniques for L3 SC2
(in-page linking and <link rel="glossary">). Is there any reason why an
in-line definition would not be sufficient as well? For example:

In this document, <dfn>readability</dfn> is a measurement based on the
average length of words and sentences.

I'll also be glad tow ork with Bengt on getting the Guide to L3 SC5 into
the appropriate template.

JOhn

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:29 AM
To: John M Slatin; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: Re: Combining GL 3.1 L3 SC2 and 3


Hello John,

At 10:58 AM 9/21/2005, John M Slatin wrote:
>In case we get tpo it today, I want to record my support for combining 
>these two SC into one.  I also think the SC should list idioms, 
>jargons, and abbreviations (i.e., deal with acronyms and initialisms as

>subtypes of abbreviation, as per previous discussion).

At the telecon we decided *not* to propose combining them for the
following 
reasons:

1. we were surprised by the amount of discussion about the definitions
of 
abbreviation and acronym. We were concerned that a proposal to change
the 
wording of a SC could trigger a similar thread and we don't want to
delay 
consensus due to minor changes to the SC
2. there was already discussion of combining these at the face-to-face
in 
Brussels and we decided to keep them separate. Based on last Thursday's 
discussion of proposals for changes to SC from team a, we felt that it 
probably best to avoid this type of discussion (that people feel they
have 
had already).
3. We will propose changing SC3 to only address abbreviations (since 
acronyms are a subset of abbreviations) and this alone could cause an 
interesting thread.
4. We felt there may be techniques that would be sufficient for 
abbreviations but optional for words used in a restricted or unusual way

(or vice versa) and that would make the guide confusing.

Therefore, we didn't feel it was a high priority to make the proposal at

this time.

Thoughts?
--wendy

Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2005 20:27:09 UTC