- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:28:05 -0400
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
It's not enough of a concern to hold up publishing the draft. Putting on open issues to discuss later will be fine. For me, it's mostly a matter of the grammar. As Charles also said, more heads in the discussion may help find the solution. Anne At 11:16 AM 8/10/01 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >Anne and Charles, > >Are your concerns about this wording strong enough that it needs to be >resolved before the draft is published to TR (hopefully 17 >August)? Instead, may I put it on the open issues list to discuss after >it is published? > >Thanks, >--wendy > >At 09:57 AM 8/10/01 , 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 >> >>At 09:13 AM 8/10/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>>I agree that the checkpoint text is still a bit too complex to be understood >>>consistently. I would propose dropping the "appropriate" from the text for >>>now, and including it in the discussion material. >>> >>>In the sufficiency criteria we should be able to provide some ways of >>>measuring whether something meets the checkpoint. >>> >>>For example (this is a 2-minute exercise and I don't think these are good >>>enough, but they might give an idea what I mean): >>(techniques deleted) >>>etc >>> >>>cheers >>> >>>Charles >>> >>>(I haven't hung up my writing instructor's hat, or my translator's hat, but >>>they are a bit dusty...) >>> >>> >>>On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote: >>> >>> Jo, >>> >>> You were right to raise the issue on the telecon, but I don't >>> think the fix worked. The sentence is an important checkpoint, and if it >>> has to be "read right", then it hasn't been written "clearly and simply" >>> yet.... >>> >>> Is it necessary to say "as is possible" as well as "as is >>> appropriate" ? Can we omit "as is possible" and leave it "Write >>> clearly and >>> simply as appropriate for the site." .... I think someone mentioned "as >>> possible" leaves a checkpoint open to abuse. >> >>Anne Pemberton >>apembert@erols.com >> >>http://www.erols.com/stevepem >>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 > >-- >wendy a chisholm >world wide web consortium >web accessibility initiative >seattle, wa usa >/-- Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 14:35:18 UTC