- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
These are techniques - possible ways of implementing the checkpoint. The
checkpoint requires that some mechanism is provided, but there is no
statement about which particular method a developer uses. Hence "may", which
seems to me should be consistent throughout the techniques.
Charles
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, William Loughborough wrote:
"An authoring tool which offers a "rendered view" of a document, such as
a browser preview mode, may provide an editing view whose presentation
can be controlled independently of the rendered view.
"A "WYSIWYG" editor may allow an author to specify a local stylesheet,
which will override the "published" style of the document."
"may" somehow seems overly permissive. If you just can't stand "must"
then at least go for "should"! Since this is P1, I vote for "must".
--
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, 17 June 1999 10:45:12 UTC