RE: 4.1 Alternate 2

That's a grand idea.  I would like to propose that we follow that with
each file must show the date generated and dates on the accessibility
statement should exist.  That would be the only fair way to identify old
pages versus new pages.  This would mean they date could not be
generated as the current date unless that is an accurate representation.
 
So, to do the date we should include perhaps the following text: "File
created on: mm dd yyyy"
 
Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 5:59 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: FW: 4.1 Alternate 2



 

4.1 Alternate 2

 

In thinking about 4.1, a major problem we identified was existing
content.  If we are asking companies to take a list of criteria such as
"one idea per sentence" and review all of the content on their site, it
could take them years.  Even Trace would fail this since we would never
find the time to read all of the thousands of pages to see if there is
one idea per sentence. (Even if we decided we won't come change
anything, we wouldn't have the time to even look at each sentence in
order to comply with 4.1.  In addition, much of the stuff cannot be
changed for historical, legal, and archival reasons.)

 

Now, how about if we focused instead on new material and revised
material?  I'm not sure how to word this.  Perhaps it would look like:

 

4.1 You will have successfully complied with 4.1 at the minimum level.
If you have reviewed all recently generated or updated materials with
the following in mind.