- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:33:42 -0400
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 03:05 PM 2000-08-24 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: > >>AG:: >> >>Does "provide the ability for users to update pages manually" really say >>what needs to be said? Compare "allow the user to require that pages only >>update manually." Which of these reflects what in the draft UAAG? > >WC:: I don't think the distinction between the two is that >different. Either way, the user will manually update the page. > AG2:: If the specification says "provide the ability for users to update pages manually" then compliant browser behavior is: The page updates when the user updates it manually, or the system updates it automatically, whichever comes first. Enabling manual update does not ipso_facto disable automatic update. If the automatic updating is required to be inhibited, we have to say so. >AG:: >>Should we consider adding a link from the "not yet satisfied" sentence to a >>dated document providing backups? Actually, a link to the UAAG would be >>interesting, too, from the next sentence. > >WC:: >What information would the "dated document providing backups" >provide? This vaguely sounds like a techniques document showing authors >what to do until user agents have satisfied the requirement. AG2:: Sorry to be obscure. The dated information I was thinking about is a document or record that states "as of [date] we assessed the availability of this function in browsers, and as of that data they don't do this enough to remove the 'until user agents' contingency." The idea is that statements to the effect that "Browsers do X" or "Browser's don't do X" that should have a data or validity date associated with them. Al > >--wendy >-- >wendy a chisholm >world wide web consortium >web accessibility initiative >madison, wi usa >tel: +1 608 663 6346 >/-- >
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2000 15:21:16 UTC