- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 21:21:54 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Using something in the informative section as an example is one thing. But if we put an example in a definition, -- and the definition is of a term that is in level 1, - then by definition, that is an example of what is required in level 1. So we should not put examples in definitions that are not level 1 examples unless the term only appears in lower level items. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 8:05 PM To: John M Slatin Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Issue 556 and 669 (and 506 definition of structure) John M Slatin writes: > > I think we could add an SVG example without implying that all graphics > have to be SVG to conform-- though we might have to say that out loud:-) I agree. More general I think we should clarify somewhere that examples given in a definition or in the guidelines are meant to be informative, not normative, and we could say by way of illustration that the example of vector-based graphics under guideline 1.3 should not be interpreted as precluding the use of raster-based images in appropriate circumstances. I would also raise the question of whether we need a section entitled "how to interpret these guidelines".
Received on Sunday, 16 May 2004 22:22:10 UTC