- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:39:04 +0200
- To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Yes that is how we had left it. But I do not think it can go to TR as is -----Original Message----- From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:25 AM To: Lisa Seeman Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: 4.1 wording Perhaps it would be best to agree first on what the success criteria are for the three conformance levels; then return to the checkpoint text itself to make sure that it is consistent with the success criteria. This strategy has worked in relation to some of the other checkpoints. I think the real controversies surrounding 4.1 relate to what the success criteria ought to be at each of the conformance levels. I also expect that there will be much advisory material included under 4.1, providing additional, non-testable but nonetheless useful, guidance to implementors. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 5/29/02 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 5/29/02
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 04:37:54 UTC