Sunday, 1 April 2001
Saturday, 31 March 2001
Friday, 30 March 2001
- Re: New Guideline proposal was: Re: Some more thoughts re 3.3 etc.
- what type of document do we want?
- New Guideline proposal was: Re: Some more thoughts re 3.3 etc.
- RE: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: Question on content relevance
- Re: 29 March 2001 WCAG WG minutes
- Regrets for next week's meetings
- 29 March 2001 WCAG WG minutes
- Jean-Marie and me
- Re: Some more thoughts re 3.3 etc.
- Some more thoughts re 3.3. etc.
- RE: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: Question on content relevance
- Question on content relevance
Thursday, 29 March 2001
- apologies
- Dick Brown signing off
- Re: CSS bug list
- CSS bug list
- Re: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: 28 March 2001 working draft
- RE: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: Agenda
- RE: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: 28 March 2001 working draft
- Re: Agenda
Wednesday, 28 March 2001
Tuesday, 27 March 2001
- checklink and javascript: URI scheme (was Re: Code: 501 Protocol scheme 'javascript' is not supported) (fwd)
- Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety
- Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety
- Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety
Monday, 26 March 2001
- Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety
- Re: General Rule - Do not forbid - only guide except for safety
Sunday, 25 March 2001
Saturday, 24 March 2001
Thursday, 22 March 2001
- 22 March 2001 WCAG WG Minutes
- Regrets for today's call
- regrets
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- FYI: review and repair of Web interface to W3C email archives
- probable regrets for tomorrow
Wednesday, 21 March 2001
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- RE: Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions)
- Re: Agenda
- Agenda
Tuesday, 20 March 2001
- FW: Section 508 resource
- Re:demo
- Regrets due to csun
- RE: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0
- Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation)
Monday, 19 March 2001
Sunday, 18 March 2001
Saturday, 17 March 2001
Friday, 16 March 2001
- CSS Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
- RE: javascript and URLs
- RE: javascript and URLs
- Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation)
- RE: javascript and URLs
- Reminder: W3C Quality Assurance Workshop position paper deadline is today
- Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0
- Re: regrets due to csun
- Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0
- Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0
- regrets for next week
- Re: Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0
- RE: regrets due to csun
- Re: regrets due to csun
- Re: regrets due to csun
- Suggested format for the WCAG 2.0
- Re: Agenda
- Re: regrets due to csun
- regrets due to csun
Thursday, 15 March 2001
- RE: Agenda
- 15 March 2001 WCAG WG minutes
- Re: Agenda
- Re: Agenda
- Re: [Moderator Action] Request to Join
- My action items: Katie
- Re: Agenda
- RE: imagemaps
- [ECMA/JavaScript] Fwd: Call for Submissions: JavaScripts Sharing in User Interface Proto typing
- RE: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- [getting off topic] RE: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- Agenda
- Fw: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
Wednesday, 14 March 2001
- Re: [side note] Physics dissertations
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- RE: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- Re: imagemaps
- RE: imagemaps
- Re: imagemaps
- imagemaps
- [side note] Physics dissertations
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
Tuesday, 13 March 2001
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- RE: Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions)
- What semantics? [was: Re: distraction: bane or content?]
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
Monday, 12 March 2001
- Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation)
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1
- Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1
- Re: Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Re: Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions)
- Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1
- Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1
- Re: class definitions and grouping - example 1
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Action Item: 3.3 Proposal (Writing Style)
- Action Item: 2.2 Proposal (Distractions)
- Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation)
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- class definitions and grouping - example 1
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
Sunday, 11 March 2001
Saturday, 10 March 2001
Friday, 9 March 2001
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- Deprecated was: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: <HR> (was Re: Fleet Boston's...) (fwd)
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- RE: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- RE: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Layout tables
Thursday, 8 March 2001
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- RE: <HR> (was Re: Fleet Boston's...) (fwd)
- Re: demo
- Re: Layout tables
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- Re: guideline guide
- RE: What does "for example" mean (process)
- Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.]
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- Minutes from 2 March 2001 F2F
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- RE: What does "for example" mean (venue?)
- Re: <HR>
- acknowledgements
- Re: <HR>
- RE: What does "for example" mean (venue?)
- RE: What does "for example" mean (venue?)
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- RE: <HR> (was Re: Fleet Boston's...) (fwd)
- demo
- Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.]
Wednesday, 7 March 2001
- Summary of WCAG 2.0 comments - 25 January 2001 draft
- guideline guide
- 01 March 2001 F2F meeting minutes (AU/ERT/WCAG)
- Re: color names - CSS techniques for WCAG
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- Various forms of simple WCAG intro Re: Action Item
- Action Item
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- Re: color names - CSS techniques for WCAG
- Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? ]
- color names - CSS techniques for WCAG
- Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? ]
- vaporguides
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- WCAG teleconference schedule
- RE: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
Tuesday, 6 March 2001
- Re: Crawling ants?
- Re: distraction: bane or content?
- Re: Crawling ants?
- Re: Crawling ants?
- RE: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- Re: Crawling ants?
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- Re: Crawling ants?
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- distraction: bane or content?
- Re: Crawling ants?
- RE: What does "for example" mean
- More crawling ants.
- Crawling ants?
- Re: Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- Re: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)
- Fw: March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)----Original Message-----
- Re: What does "for example" mean [ was summary attribute required? history.
- March 2 F2F Minutes (checkpoint discussion)
Monday, 5 March 2001
- Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.]
- Re: Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.]
- Re: What does "for example" mean [ was summary attribute required? history.
- What does "for example" mean [ was summary attribute required? history.
- Layout tables [ was summary attribute required? history.]
- Re: transitional vs strict
- RE: javascript and URLs
- Re: summary attribute required? history.
- RE: summary attribute required? history.
- RE: summary attribute required? history.
- Re: summary attribute required? history.
- Re: summary attribute required? history.
- RE: summary attribute required? history.
- RE: transitional vs strict was RE: summary attribute required? history.
- transitional vs strict was RE: summary attribute required? history.
- Re: summary attribute required? history.
- RE: summary attribute required? history.
- Re: summary attribute required? history.
- [Moderator Action] Re: Color Blindness
Sunday, 4 March 2001
- content control: other precedents besides OBJECT element in HTML4
- Software Engineering Institute
- RE: javascript and URLs
- RE: javascript and URLs (new window)
- RE: javascript and URLs
- Re: javascript and URLs
Saturday, 3 March 2001
Friday, 2 March 2001
Thursday, 1 March 2001
- Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments
- Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments
- Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments
- Re: my first contribution to the techniques with attachments
- my first contribution to the techniques with attachments
- my first contribution to the techniques
- Re: summary attribute required? history.
Sunday, 25 February 2001
Friday, 23 February 2001
Thursday, 22 February 2001
Tuesday, 20 February 2001
Monday, 19 February 2001
Sunday, 18 February 2001
Friday, 16 February 2001
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
Thursday, 15 February 2001
- Re: First draft test plan/procedures
- 15 February 2001 WCAG WG minutes
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
- updated Checkpoint mapping
- First draft test plan/procedures
- Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
- Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft
Wednesday, 14 February 2001
- RE: schedule for WCAG 2.0?
- FW: Languages and 508 for the Web
- Languages and 508 for the Web
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- 508
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- Re: Agenda
- Re: schedule for WCAG 2.0?
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- Agenda
Tuesday, 13 February 2001
- schedule for WCAG 2.0?
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- Joining Web Content Guidelines Working Group
- RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)
- Table rendering bug on IG list [was Aaargh ... ]
- Fw: Responding
- Reminder: W3C plenary (face to face meeting) registration due by 15 February
Monday, 12 February 2001
- Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
- Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives
- Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives
- Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives
- Re: Vector Graphical Alternatives
- Vector Graphical Alternatives
- Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
Sunday, 11 February 2001
Saturday, 10 February 2001
- Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
- Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
- Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
- Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
Friday, 9 February 2001
- RE: [TECHS] Re: Latest List
- Re: some thoughts on testing of techniques
- some thoughts on testing of techniques
- RE: [TECHS] Re: Latest List
- [TECHS] Re: Latest List
- [TECHS] Re: Latest List
Thursday, 8 February 2001
- 08 February 2001 WCAG WG telecon minutes
- FW: Accessibility
- RE: Agenda
- regrets for today's call
- Suggested addition to 1.1
- Minutes from 1 February 2001 telecon
- Re: new draft of technology-specific checkpoints
Wednesday, 7 February 2001
- Re: "Freak Cases Warrant Generalization"...
- RE: check out this page
- check out this page
- new draft of technology-specific checkpoints
Tuesday, 6 February 2001
- Re: [Moderator Action] Question about your site.
- Agenda
- Minutes from 25 January 2001 telecon
- Re: [Moderator Action] Question about your site.
Sunday, 4 February 2001
- last part of minutes from thursday
- (Small chunk of) WCAG minutes 2001.02.01 (fwd)
- 15 minutes of notes (fwd)
Saturday, 3 February 2001
Thursday, 1 February 2001
Wednesday, 31 January 2001
- Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- RE: process of a site development
- RE: process of a site development
- Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- Re: process of a site development
- Re: process of a site development
- Re: process of a site development
- Re: process of a site development
- Re: process of a site development
- Re: wcag2.0 discussion?
- Re: process of a site development
- Re: wcag2.0 discussion?
- Re: process of a site development
- Re: wcag2.0 discussion?
Tuesday, 30 January 2001
- Agenda
- Call for Papers: New international journal UNIVERSAL ACCESS IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
- Re: Colorblindness references
- Re: Colorblindness references
Sunday, 28 January 2001
- RE: Practical considerations and 1.0 [ was Agenda
- Re: Contrast
- Re: Colorblindness references
- Re: Colorblindness references
- Re: Contrast
- Re: Colorblindness references
Friday, 26 January 2001
Sunday, 28 January 2001
Thursday, 25 January 2001
Sunday, 28 January 2001
Friday, 26 January 2001
- RE: process of a site development
- Re: wcag2.0 discussion?
- Re: process of a site development
- RE: process of a site development
- wcag2.0 discussion?
- Re: Contrast
- Re: The web processing model: ideas for an introduction
Thursday, 25 January 2001
- process of a site development
- Contrast
- The web processing model: ideas for an introduction
- Practical considerations and 1.0 [ was Agenda
- Issues arising from checkpoint map: some suggestions
- Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- RE: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
Wednesday, 24 January 2001
Tuesday, 23 January 2001
- Re: regrets for Thursday's call
- fyi - i love stats
- Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- Re: Can the W3C HML validaor send email when the page becomes invalid (was Re: WWW: Interoperability Crisis?)
- Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
Monday, 22 January 2001
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- Re: "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- "until user agents?" - revisiting baseline capabilities
- regrets for Thursday's call
- Re: Can the W3C HML validaor send email when the page becomes invalid (was Re: WWW: Interoperability Crisis?)
- Setting a Clear Enough Goal
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- RE: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- RE: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0
- Re: Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
- Reapproaching WCAG 2.0
Sunday, 21 January 2001
- Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
- Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
Saturday, 20 January 2001
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- RE: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
- 20 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 published
- RE: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
Friday, 19 January 2001
- Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
- RE: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
- Re: Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
- Proposa for Abstract for WCAG 2.0 working draft
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Perseverance Furthers
- Re: Minutes from 18 January 2001 WCAG WG Telecon
Thursday, 18 January 2001
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Minutes from 18 January 2001 WCAG WG Telecon
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Re: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
- Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs
Wednesday, 17 January 2001
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Agenda
Tuesday, 16 January 2001
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- RE: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- RE: Testing and 508
- RE: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0
- Re: Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0
- Comments on 12 January 2001 WCAG 2.0
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Re: Don't require <Q>
Monday, 15 January 2001
- Re: Don't require <Q>
- Don't require <Q>
- Meeting page for MARCH face to face meetings
- RE: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- RE: [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- [w3c-wai-gl] <none>
- Meeting page for February face to face meetings
- Re: Fwd: Indicating Compliance
- Fwd: No disability in Digitalized Community
Sunday, 14 January 2001
- FYI: WCAG Popularity/All SVG site
- Re: Subsumation
- Equivalence, was Re: Subsumation
- Re: "Freak Cases Warrant Generalization"...
- Re: Subsumation
Saturday, 13 January 2001
- "Freak Cases Warrant Generalization"...
- Re: Subsumation
- Reaching?
- Subsumation
- Writing to screen by Javascript
- Re: ACTION: review the 12 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0
Friday, 12 January 2001
Saturday, 13 January 2001
Friday, 12 January 2001
- Fwd: Indicating Compliance
- ACTION: review the 12 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0
- RE: PDF and Accessibility
- microsoft rep
- RE: PDF and Accessibility
- Re: PDF and Accessibility
Thursday, 11 January 2001
- Minutes of 11 January 2001 WCAG WG telecon
- Updated: WCAG 2.0 Open Issues List
- 11 January 2001 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 published
- Regrets
- Re: Regrets
- Re: Another stab
- Re: Another stab
- RE: Another stab
Wednesday, 10 January 2001
- Re: WCAG 2.0: Linear or Fractal? [was: Re: On Further Consideration]
- Re: WCAG 2.0: Linear or Fractal? [was: Re: On Further Consideration]
- WCAG 2.0: Linear or Fractal? [was: Re: On Further Consideration]
- Re: Another stab
- RE: PDF and Accessibility
- PDF and Accessibility
- Another stab
- On Further Consideration
- Agenda
Tuesday, 9 January 2001
- Re: Quick question
- Re: Request to Join
- FW: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider
- Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider
- WCAG 1.0 errata updated, clarification of checkpoint 3.1
- Quick question
- Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider
- Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider
- Re: Structure of the guidelines: four options to consider
Monday, 8 January 2001
Tuesday, 9 January 2001
Monday, 8 January 2001
- Numerology/Guidelines
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines
- Re: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Web Accessibility in Popular Culture
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
Sunday, 7 January 2001
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- ALT with INPUT( No image type)
- RE: ALT with INPUT
- RE: ALT with INPUT
- RE: ALT with INPUT
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- RE: QUESTION: use of JavaScript to comply with Sect 508 (fwd)
Saturday, 6 January 2001
- Re: ALT with INPUT
- Re: terms for pictures and such (both coarse and fine categories, related)
- Minutes 04 January 2001 WCAG WG telecon
- Re: RDF in html:address
Friday, 5 January 2001
- Re: RDF in html:address
- Re: Template for making techniques;
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe
- Re: terms for pictures and such (both coarse and fine categories, related)
- DIAP
- Template for making techniques;
- terms for pictures and such (both coarse and fine categories, related)
- Re: Terminology for Pictures and Stuff (was: Revised List)
Thursday, 4 January 2001
Friday, 5 January 2001
Thursday, 4 January 2001
- Terminology for Pictures and Stuff (was: Revised List)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: RDF in html:address
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- RDF in html:address
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Fwd: RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- RE: Accessibility of web pages
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: SVG Data Technique
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- SVG Data Technique
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: Latest List
- Re: Latest List
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Kynn's regrets for tomorrow's call
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe (sizing, flowing, and mixed media)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: regrets for tomorrow's call
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
Wednesday, 3 January 2001
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Latest List
- Re: regrets for tomorrow's call
- RE: Latest List
- Re: (won't william be glad?)
- regrets for tomorrow's call
- RE: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- RE: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Latest List
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: List of Technologies
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: [Moderator Action] Additional Requirements for Conformance
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- RE: SVG Plugin from Adobe
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: List of Technologies
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- without even a word, And plenty of vision. was:Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: List of Technologies
- Re: HTML and XHTML techniques
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: WAI guidelines
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: List of Technologies
Tuesday, 2 January 2001
- Agenda for Thursday's Teleconference Meeting
- acronyms
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Update 3: List of Technologies and Volunteers
- Re: Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- Re: Checkpoint on testability
- Re: Revised List of Technologies
- WAI guidelines
- Revised List of Technologies
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Revised List of Technologies (with volunteers...)
- WCAG Equivalent for Section 508's 1194.22, "P" requirement
- Technical Plenary and WG Meeting Event, 26 February - 2 March 2001
- Re: List of Technologies
- Re: HTML and XHTML techniques
- Re: HTML and XHTML techniques
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- HTML and XHTML techniques
- Re: List of Technologies
- Re: FW: Heh Heh Heh... NAVIGATE THIS IF YOU CAN!
- FW: Heh Heh Heh... NAVIGATE THIS IF YOU CAN!
- Re: List of Technologies
- Re: List of Technologies
- Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block"
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- Re: 3.7 in 1?
- 3.7 in 1?
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block"
- List of Technologies
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block"
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- RE: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block"
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block"
- Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: interesting one for text equivalence
- interesting one for text equivalence
- Re: Breaking the Techniques "Writer's Block"