Re: Resolutions on Changes to REQUIREMENTS DOC

My opinion would be to note in the document that this statement is still
under discussion, and publish. If people felt that a document should not be
published with such a note then my second repference would be to hold up
publication - my third preference is that my comments are ignored and the
document is published with no annotation of this statement, as is.

Charles

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  Charles,

  Do you feel we need to address this fuzziness before publishing the document this Thursday?

  --wendy

  >  S1 - Serving content in different forms in order to meet different user
  >  needs or preferences is an acceptable way to comply with the guidelines,
  >  --  as long as equivalents for all of the information are provided in
  >  the different forms, and it is all available from the same URI.
  >  (Accessible, findable links to alternate form(s) is allowed.) (Server
  >  side solutions are acceptable - as specified.)
  >
  >CMN This still seems unclear to me as a way of phrasing what we mean. Does it
  >mean every version must be content-negotiated, to keep the URI the same (in
  >parctice this doesn't work with existing systems, where a specific version
  >can come from a generic, content-negotiated URI, or can come from a specific
  >version URI), or does it mean that it must be possible (easy?) to get from
  >one version to another by some means?
  >
  >I therefore propose that we mark this as an issue still open until we can
  >produce (or the editors can propose) some wording that seems less fuzzy
  >
  >Charles McCN



-- 
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 Monday, 28 January 2002 11:54:47 UTC