- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:48:53 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Regrets - I will not be able to attend.
1. Combining old checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 (i.e., whether "auditory
descriptions" should occupy a separate checkpoint as Gregg has suggested).
Have just sent my thoughts on this.
2. Checkpoint 2.1 (revised text as in forthcoming draft).
It is hard to comment without the draft. I request that this be postponed a
week.
3. Whether checkpoint 4.1 is redundant (discussed at the close of last
week's meeting).
I consider that 4.1 is important. I think there is a case to be made that
being able to support P3 requirements is a P1 requirement - in essence that
it allows for some hope of improvement without having to do a complete
rebuild. Other possibilities include using the relative priority system that
ATAG has. In any event, I don't see anywhere that this checkpoint is marked
as P1.
4. Any other issues that need to be resolved before the draft is
released publicly via the TR page.
I think a "how to use this document" section should be included. I think this
group should use the definitions from the "combined glossary", noting in the
draft that these have not yet gained consensus within the working group -
they are generally better than "not yet defined". Neither of these should be
blocks for publication (since I can always send them as comments on the
draft) and I consider that the editors are smart enough t odo a first pass at
them that isn't too horrible without me having to read it again.
Cheers
Charles
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 10:45:01 UTC