- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:36:44 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/09/6-minutes.html 6 September 2001 WCAG WG Present · Loretta · Wendy · Charles · Tim · Jason · Andi · Paul · Matt · Katie · Gregg · Jo Regrets · Gregory Microsoft presentation at F2F Resolved: modify agenda for Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning to accomodate Microsoft presentation and discussion. monday · 1:30 - 3:30 Presentation and discussion with Microsoft product development groups · 3:30 - 3:45 Break · 3:45 - 5:30 Break into groups to work on SVG and ECMAScript techniques (prep for public working drafts) tuesday · 8:30 - 9:00 Continental breakfast · 9:00 - 10:30 Discussion of comments from latest working draft of CSS Techniques and PDF Techniques Action WC: post list of required readings w/ Techniques Drafts JW HTML published this evening, PDF earlier today. WC Would like to compare the 3 techniques documents. Very different. What format should they take? How do success criteria relate to techniques/technology-specific checkpoints. JW I can take an action to write up a proposal and capture the issues. KHS Take existing 3 differences, which is good for each and how they should organize the documents. GV I think of them as being A, B, and C. A = general, non-technology specific, B = technology-specific things you had to do, C=in WCAG 1.0 is techniques, but notes about how to do it, code, informative info. Action JW: Write up issues with technology-specific information and relation to non-tech info. $Date: 2001/09/06 23:20:03 $ Wendy Chisholm -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative seattle, wa usa /--
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 19:21:14 UTC