Re: Call for review of WCAG 2.0 draft

I like the idea of splitting things up in bigger chunks first - documents,
multimedia, applications - and then in that bit getting into what is general
across them, and what is particular to a given language...

After all there are also plenty of people who DO know what language they are
using. We need to figure out how to have that cake both ways...

Chaals

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

  > Do I go to the HTML, XML, SVG, etc techniques document?
  > If I don't even know what these languages are and have never
  > seen examples of these how will I know which link to choose?
  > What level of knowledge is assumed?

  This is why I like William's terse version [1] so much. It's better
  integrated than the current draft, and yet it carries less information. A
  HyperLink is a link to much more information... and by letting people
  choose the parts they want to cogitate, rather than setting it all out and
  having people skip bits, you get mroe value out of it.

  We have guidelines... those are the bare backbones. Then we have
  checkpoints... those are still essential. But then we have optional bits:
  [background] [reasoning] [techniques] and so on, and all of these should be
  linked, rather than concisified and crammed into a small bit of space on
  the document.

  [1] http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm

  --
  Kindest Regards,
  Sean B. Palmer
  @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
  [ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 05:31:54 UTC