- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:51:59 -0600
- To: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "'Sailesh Panchang'" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think a way to handle this is as follows. Under level 1 sc 1 write "Conforming to 1.3 SC 1 "Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined." also addresses this guideline." Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 6:10 PM To: Jason White; Sailesh Panchang Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: [2.4] Updated proposal for GL 2.4 Jason writes: <blockquote> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Sailesh Panchang wrote: > If content does not comply with 1.3 SC 1, it cannot claim conformance > with all level 1 SC anyway. I do not see the point of repeating the > same SC here under 2.4. This has generated a lot of opposition in the teleconferences and on the list. Here is a suggestion, for now, let's make it a cross-reference to 1.3 L 1 SC 1. </blockquote> I agree that we should make this a cross-reference. And let's do it in a way that conforms to 1.3. Does the DTD include a crossreference attribute or linktype that's different from a simple link to a named anchor? John
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 01:52:03 UTC