- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:35:29 -0500
- To: love26@gorge.net, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
William & EOWG, You seem to question the importance of explaining other types of W3C documents in your email[1]. It has been important to clarify that the WCAG 2.0 supporting documents are *not* on the W3C Recommendation track. For example, - In the WCAG 2.0 Extension e-mail at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2006AprJun/0083.html - In the Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20 In this version, we just say "(supporting document)", as I thought it not necessary to clarify that "the other supporting documents will be W3C Notes or WAI resources" as I had in previous versions. Note that I think the only type of W3C WAI documents are: 1. W3C Recommendations [formal process for] 2. W3C Working Groups Notes [formal process for] 2. "WAI Resources" [which includes most of the EOWG deliverables and WAI site pages] While it may not be important in the "Process 101" doc to explain W3C Notes in detail; it may be good to mention briefly something about not all W3C docs are Recommendations, or that some documents along with W3C Recommendations are not actual Recommendations -- or, specifically under the WAI section that the supporting documents, such as the Techniques, are not W3C Recommendations, or... ? EOWG: Comments? ~ Shawn [1] William Loughborough wrote: > Shawn Henry wrote: > >> - I think we probably should include something about Notes; however, >> I'm a little concerned about expanding the document. > > > If we must explain 'Notes' as well as 'recommendations/standards' then > where do we stop? > > Redundancy is imperative on rocket ships to the moon, but not so much so > in an array of similar documents. > > Love. > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 17:35:37 UTC