Re: Section 4

> Re:"It's not like saying I don't want to deal with accessibility of au
> tools, just that it shouldn't happen here and today."
> 
> Response: The issues for me are:
> 1 "tomorrow" never comes

Emphasis was on the "here". 

To me, it's like if someone was saying: "let's propose a different
DHTML events syntax in section 4". I would say: out of scope. This is
for another working group (in this case PF).

> 2. this is a short piece in the entire guidelines

How can you say that where barely no one has ever commented on it ?

I bet if we want to include it, it's going to grow substentially and
take us a lot of cycles, because we will want to do it right.

> 3. including it promotes inclusion from the beginning  of the design
> process rather than "oh yeah, we forgot, but here is a patch" kind of
> development

There is no "the design" here. There are two differents design task,
independent:
  - the design of an accessible interface for authoring tools 
  - the design of authoring tools that generate accessible content


> 4. it was mentioned that there might be another document which deals
> entirely with this issue and perhaps the door can be left open here for
> it's creation; at the end of Section 4/before Section 5 to point to a
> future guidelines document (if such guidelines is generated then I would
> also support a "similarly short" section linking it to this one)

I'll repeat what I have said: an web authoring tool is a web user
agent specialized in editing (doing browsing as well), so I favor
moving this section 4 in the UA guidelines and working on it there,
even if this means delaying them.

Received on Monday, 9 November 1998 02:54:01 UTC