- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:17:40 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hmmm. On the one hand, the goal you are proposing is really beyond the scope of the Guidelines, and in that sense I think we should be extremely wary of putting stuff like that into them. On the other hand, you are right that it could be used to promote awareness, which is not a bad thing. It is probably sensible to use MathML as an example for the current a.14 'use W3C technologies where possible...', or for a checkpoint which suggests keeping track of emerging W3C technologies such as MathML. From what I understand it would be appropriate to use it as an example of a technology which was accessible for new implementations, but which did not provide useful content to older implementations, and therefore needs to be supplemented with redundant information. (I think I wrote a note to the list a few months ago about doing this, via OBJECT) But in the guidelines I have trouble with the idea that we should single out scientific information (and not music, for example) as needing special attention. Although we already do that for audio/visual media. Should we generalise the examples a bit more? thoughts? Charles On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote: To have a checkpoint related to math and scientific representations I think would be useful to give visibility to the issue. This is especially important in educational environments like the one I work in. If information on math and scientific representations is burried in a more generic checkpoint description, it may not be easy for people to find. Jon
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 1999 18:17:43 UTC