W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Section 3 +

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:41:49 -0500 (EST)
To: Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus <Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903231759580.29643-100000@tux.w3.org>
It is my opinion (as expressed in the teleconference on 9 february) is
that we should open the pandora's box and explicitly state the most
important needs, in part because I am not convinced that we will end up
with a massive list of extra requirements. I still hold that opinion.
Which is not to say that I won't change my mind, or wind up proposing this
stuff for the introduction instead - at the moment it is a discussion
piece, which I have cast in the way I see it most appropriately included.


On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus wrote:

       My understanding of the spirit and letter of section 3 conflicts with
  what you're proposing.  Based on the last tele-conference and the current
  working draft, section 3 should only give guidelines that relate to the
  "unique functionality of authoring tools".  If we open this up, I fear
  we'll end up sliding down a slippery slope.  While I'm not crazy about
  guideline #3 as I've stated previously, I can live with it if we keep it in
  this restricted sense.
       There is an Editor's Note for guideline #3 stating that the
  introduction will be re-written to highlight some of the main points
  provided by the other standards documents.  Maybe your checkpoints could go
  -- Bruce
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 18:43:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC