RE: natural language checkpoint for WCAG2 GL1

aloha, gregg!

while i'm not sure that, in this instance, a one-sentence distillation of my
2 sentence proposal would be any clearer, and since--as you all too well
know--terseness isn't exactly my strong suit, i may not be the right person
to ask to whittle my proposal down, but here goes anyway...

submitted for your (collective approval) are 2 re-iterations of my original
proposal, which i have also included here, marked as PROPOSED1:

<PROPOSED1>
Define the natural language of each document. Indicate changes in the
natural language declared for a document using appropriate markup.
</PROPOSED1>

<PROPOSED2>
Using appropriate markup, define the natural language of each
document, indicating any changes.
</PROPOSED2>

<PROPOSED3>
Define the natural language of each document, and indicate any
changes within the document, using appropriate markup.
</PROPOSED3>

personally, if i had to choose, i'd choose PROPOSED2 -- the more i re-listen
to it, the more it allays my initial reluctance about combination of the 2
requirements into a single statment, especially as i don't think you have to
be a loose constructionist to read PROPOSED2 as extending to the indication
of changes in natural language as a result of user activity, such as, say,
following a link whose target resource has been referentially marked, using
an 'hreflang'-type mechanism, as being encoded in a different natural
language...

gregory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds.
                                                -- George Santayana
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
                           http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 21:12:22 UTC