- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 16:58:59 +0100
- To: charles@w3.org, ibjacobs@panix.com, jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca
- cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
The example introducing [Relative Priority] is good, but it's kind of wordy and without a better structuring, hard to swallow. I suggest (make in two bullets and get rid of some unimportant rationale/solution to make it shorter). New text: For example: - Providing text equivalents for images and audio is a priority 1 requirement in [WAI-WEBCONTENT] therefore, it is a priority 1 requirement for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the author for (3.1) equivalent alternatives for these types of content. - Expansion of abbreviations and acronyms with ABBR and ACRONYM elements is a priority 3 in [WAI-WEBCONTENT], therefore, it is only priority 3 for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the author for (3.2) this information. -- End new text In the above: "priority 1" and "priority 3" are in strong and "therefore" in <em> to make the binding clear. I also suggest moving the definition itself (It is priority 1 to...) before the example, right after [Relative Priority], to use the example as explanatory material after the important stuff has been told.
Received on Monday, 1 November 1999 10:58:14 UTC