Re: Resolutions on Changes to REQUIREMENTS DOC

I do agree with this technology assessment.  And that this is an important
point to consider in crafting the Guidelines provisions and language.

On the other hand, I think it's debatable whether this is Requirements Doc
content or Guidelines Doc content.  So I think it's OK if it doesn't induce an
edit in the requirements document at this time.  Think issues list.  

Can we capture this thread to the issues list, where it has to show up on the
agenda downstream; and with that let the Requirements Doc go forward to Public
Draft on TR?

For the record, I am so passsive-agressive that while I think there is a fatal
problem with the statement "all options have to cover all information," I'm not
arguing that this should be fixed before we hang the document on the TR page. 
It takes too much time to develop the necessary understanding and a consensus
around some other statement we can actually evaluate and stick to.

Al

At 10:20 AM 2002-02-01 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>There is another scenario. It is likely that people will at some point hand
>around a bookmark for the version of the page that they were at. For example,
>the "published bookmark" for the page you mean might be
><http://moomin.invalid/>http://moomin.invalid/ and as a user of Netscape I get
directed to the
>all-singing, all-dancing version at
<http://moomin.invalid/singing>http://moomin.invalid/singing - an
>equivalent page to <http://moomin.invalid/text>http://moomin.invalid/text
>
>As a user, I would bookmark this page, and send it to someone else. They
>would find that they needed the text version to work properly with JAWS and
>Internet Explorer, but since there is no way of setting the University
>library system to run through a CC/PP proxy that understands how to get the
>right page (something that the page publisher had carefully and sensibly
>enabled) they appear to be running IE more or less as is.
>
>It is therefore important that one of the choice mechanisms is delivered via
>the content, and that that part of the content is accessible.
>
>Chaals
>
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Jim Ley wrote:
>
>  "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
>
>  > At 05:36 AM 2/1/02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>  > >So for the moent I disagree.
>
>  I also have some reservations, but I think they would be covered by
>  adding another proviso, about what happens when urls are exchanged.
>
>  If I'm on accessible to me page
<http://moomin.invalid/text/>http://moomin.invalid/text/ and I wish to
>  tell someone else of this resource, I must be able to do so just by
>  giving them the url I'm on.  Exactly how this might be worded is not
>  something I'm up too...
>
>  Jim.
>
>
>-- 
>Charles McCathieNevile   
<http://www.w3.org/People/Charles>http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61
409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    
<http://www.w3.org/WAI>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 Friday, 1 February 2002 12:13:35 UTC