- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:49:34 -0500 (EST)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Yes. It is an ongoing discussion of something that is fairly arbitrary. But
it is very difficult to discuss things if we don't have some common ways of
talking about them - like using the same names, and meaning the same things.
Chaals
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, William Loughborough wrote:
At 12:54 PM 3/15/01 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>At the face to face meeting, there was opposition to calling them "techniques"
Why was this brought up?
Was there support for calling them "techniques"?
Isn't it a bit late to be changing this since the consensus was reached a
few years ago? Where were the "opposition" then?
The words "techniques document" although referring to a non-normative item
might themselves be normative?
Isn't this like the argument we resolved about "principles" vs. "guidelines"?
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
--
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: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 08:49:42 UTC