RE: Draft ERT WG Charter for review and comment

Will's comment: Perhaps we could build a validator...



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:07 PM
To: 'William Loughborough'
Cc: 'Josh Krieger'; w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Draft ERT WG Charter for review and comment



Hi William,

Thank you very much for sharing your comments! Could you please clarify
a little more what you mean, I'm not sure I understood that very well.

Thanks,
  Shadi


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of William Loughborough
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 19:02
To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Cc: Josh Krieger
Subject: Re: Draft ERT WG Charter for review and comment


As such things go, it seems OK but I would like to see the
"goal/mission" 
to be more towards getting a Web Service facility from the process
rather 
than a "recommendation", i.e. we should be moving towards a
validator/fixer 
like Tidy instead of guideline type document.

Less discussion, more coding so that it gets to be at least as usable as
Bobby.


--
Love.

Everyone/everything/everywhere/always connected

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 04:00:54 UTC