- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
[changed subject line to help finding it afterwards in the archive] Well, I think we could do without all the qualifying statements in the checkpoint text. But it seems that there is a desire to have some qualification, so the trick is to select the most important bits and not overcrowd the text. Good point about the grammar lesson stuff, and if there are such things online then it would be helpful to refer to them. One of the reasons for learning grammar is to have a better range of techniques for writing. For example, a good understanding of the differences between active and passive voices is generally helpful in trying to write in one or the other, and in translating between the two. There are a number of differnt language skills that are needed to actually implement 3.3. Good vocabulary can to a large extent be automated, or strongly supported by automatic tools. Good grammar is also important in understanding how to write things that are not ambiguous (as well as in how to deliberately introduce ambiguity) and I expect a fair amount of this to be in techniques. I also expect translations of techniques for this to actually be different - some features of language use are the same for a lot of languages, some are different. And examples of language should be relevant and natural to the language they are written in. (So all you translators out there, have a think about this one <grin/>). cheers Charles On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote: Charles, Do we need "as possible" as a qualifier, or should that be in the techniques as well? Oh, I liked the first two of your techniques, but think the one about pronouns belongs in a grammar lesson instead of "techniques" ... Anne
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 10:22:48 UTC