Re: Terminology revisited

On the one hand I agree that this is hardly the most important question we
are going to face this week. On the other hand, I find it difficult to
understand why we would change the terminology, and confusing when I am
trying to discuss the different versions (especially outside this group, for 
example giving presentations).

So my line in the sand ius that we should use the old terminology.

I think we have come from 14 guidelines and 68 checkpoints to about half a
dozen guidelines and about 25 checkpoints, and that somewhere around those
numbers is a much better place to be.

I agree that we need a layer of examples, and of techniques for meeting the
checkpoints with respect to a given technology or situation (as I wrote
earlier, we will never have a situation where all
checkpoints/requirements/wkrstfgs are relevant to all situations), and that
they need to be fluid, and developed as the technology develops.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

  If anyone is drawing a line in the sand about this let that be known now. I 
  am not. In fact I think this is a fairly trivial matter and should be 
  resolved forthwith.

Charles McCathieNevile    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative            
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 08:22:11 UTC