- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:37:21 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Authoring Tools Guidelines List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
aloha, charles!
as recorded in the minutes for today's telecon,
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/meetings/8mar00
you stated, in my response to the suggestion that the final draft of
conformance reviews are passed by the manufacturer
quote
CMN I think the reviews are useful, but I don't want to avoid publishing in
case someone doesn't like it - evaluation and criticism is a common
activity everywhere except police states, but developers can often provide
further information, or even make improvements.
unquote
what i meant was that the manufacturer would be pointed to the draft, asked
to comment on it, and have a deadline in which to do so... any factual
errors would be corrected before the draft was finalized, and any
additional comments from the manufacturer would be incorporated into an
appendix...
that way, the manufacturer is made part of the loop, but the turning of the
loop isn't dependent upon the manufacturer...
still, i do like phil's idea of getting online reviewers to consider ATAG
as a criterion for their reviews -- is this something we could possibly get
EO to assist us with?
gregory
--------------------------------------------------------
He that lives on Hope, dies farting
-- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
WebMaster and Minister of Propaganda, VICUG NYC
<http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html>
--------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2000 18:27:09 UTC