- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:01:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
What we say at the moment is "do what they say". It may be that what "they" say is sufficient, in which case we can rest easy and be grateful. If not, we need to make an explicit exception, which is a genuine full blown issue (although I agree with you, that documentation is really really important) that we need to look into. Without demonstrating that there is something wrong with existing specifications for making tools accessible I am loath to just add a requirement that I think properly belongs in those other specifications. Cheers Chaals On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, William Loughborough wrote: At 12:52 PM 11/24/00 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >do a survey of the different materials for doing that, and see what they say Actually I'm more interested in what *we* say rather than what *they* say. The question is still: "Can it be the case that the needfuls for documentation can make it a higher priority than the document for which it is the skeleton key?" -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 24 November 2000 13:01:33 UTC