- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 21:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
This sounds like the Priority 'R' proposal that Daniel put forward at
Toronto. I think it is my preferred model, but I would like to know which
option other people find the clearest.
Charles
On Thu, 27 May 1999, William Loughborough wrote:
The "relative priority" issue is addressed in the 527 document by this
clause:
"(Priority 1 for *** which is [Web-Content-Priority-1], Priority 2 for
*** which is [Web-Content-Priority-2], Priority 3 for *** which is
[Web-Content-Priority-3])"
How about:
"Priority level for *** corresponds to its priority level in WCAG."?
Where *** is "alternative content" in 2.4.2, "structural information" in
2.4.3, "accessibility problems" in 2.6.1 & 2.6.3.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
--Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Thursday, 27 May 1999 21:12:19 UTC