- From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:18:46 -0700
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
okay, i need to be careful when i say "required" but still think we are confusing people outside the communtiy who must implement this and come up to speed <smile> ----- Original Message ----- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net> To: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com> Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 7:05 AM Subject: Re: Conformance Level > RN:: "...eliminating...Prioritites!" > > WL: I guess that for everything except U.S. Federally funded sites this > makes a lot of sense. "Conformance" in the sense of Section 508 and > whether purchase of only accessible goods and services is permissible > probably must have some criterion. *RECOMMENDED* guidelines should be > just that recommended. Priority and Conformance seem to be related to > *REQUIRED* more than *recommended*. The notion that W3C can require > anything is only germane when their recommendations have been given > official primateur as in Access Board Regulations - beyond our purview. > > -- > Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE > http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Monday, 5 July 1999 10:23:32 UTC