- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:19:10 +1000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
If there were an extended checkpoint or success criterion that said: A controlled language is used. Surely that would be testable, for it could be determined whether the author has consistently abided by rules governing vocabulary and syntax that are intended to enhance comprehension. The guidelines need not, and, I would argue, should not prescribe those rules relative to any given natural language or type of content; references to applicable standards could then be given in techniques. Independently of the question whether there should be an extended checkpoint specifying the use of a "controlled language", I think there is little doubt that it could be made testable, its being required that (1) there exist a standard or other definition of a controlled language to which the content author has decided to conform; and (2) the content does in fact conform to it. In fact it might even be machine testable if there is a generative grammar for the required syntax and a list of permissible vocabulary; and before anybody asks, it is a fundamental insight of modern linguistics, as I understand it, that the syntax of every natural language can be described by a generative grammar.
Received on Saturday, 9 August 2003 02:19:22 UTC