- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:39:15 -0500 (EST)
- To: dd@w3.org
- cc: ibjacobs@panix.com, jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Sounds good to me... Charles On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Daniel Dardailler wrote: 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. --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 Monday, 1 November 1999 11:39:19 UTC