- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:14:14 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I agree that scripts are covered seperately. I disagree that 1.1 is more fundamental, but that's philosophy that only needs to be considered if we disagree. Chaals On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Jason White wrote: Interesting minutes. A quick suggestion: move "scripts" out of checkpoint 1.1. They are covered by checkpoint 4.4. The result is that an implementor can choose whether or not to provide an alternative to scripts, and therefore decide to comply (or not to comply) with checkpoint 4.4, without being regarded as having failed checkpoint 1.1, which everyone agrees is a much more fundamental requirement. I would also like to have a summary, after the meeting, of the proposals which are put forward. Wishing you much success at the meeting, Jason. -- 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 Tuesday, 11 September 2001 17:14:17 UTC