w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from April to June 2005 by date

Thursday, 30 June 2005

• Regrets: Agenda 6/30/05 Roberto Castaldo
• 06/30 call Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• Updated mapping of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 success criteria Andi Snow-Weaver
• RE: regrets, Agenda 6/30/05 Luca Mascaro
• regrets, Agenda 6/30/05 Roberto Ellero
• Re: Agenda 6/30/05 ======================= Tim Boland
• Re: Start time of WCAG telecon (was:Re: Agenda 6/30/05) Wendy Chisholm
• Re: Agenda 6/30/05 ======================= WATANABE Takayuki
• Re: Agenda 6/30/05 ======================= Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. -
• Start time of WCAG telecon (was:Re: Agenda 6/30/05) Christophe Strobbe
• Re: Agenda 6/30/05 - partial regrets Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Probable regrets (RE: Agenda 6/30/05 =======================) Yvette Hoitink
• Regrets: Agenda 6/30/05 ======================= Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Agenda 6/30/05 ======================= lguarino@adobe.com

Monday, 27 June 2005

• Agenda 6/30/05 ======================= Gregg Vanderheiden

Thursday, 30 June 2005

• GL 1.3 issue summary against June 30 draft Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• GL 2.2 issue summary (close/clarify/not addressed) Christophe Strobbe
• [2.4] Issue summary Yvette Hoitink

Wednesday, 29 June 2005

• Fwd: [Proposed Recommendation] QA Specification Guidelines Tim Boland

Monday, 27 June 2005

• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Jason White

Sunday, 26 June 2005

• Web Standards Project Accessibility Task Force Joe Clark
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? Bailey, Bruce

Friday, 24 June 2005

• RE: Proposed ednote to clarify captions and transcript Yvette Hoitink
• GL 4.2 Issues Summary Loretta Guarino Reid

Thursday, 23 June 2005

• [minutes] 23 june 2005 telecon Wendy A Chisholm
• Re: Validation: what criteria in L1, L2 or L3?... Maurizio Boscarol
• Proposed ednote to clarify captions and transcript Michael Cooper
• Protected message Wendy
• Re: Agenda: 23 June Telecon - partial regrets Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: regrets for today's call (06/23) Luca Mascaro
• Regrets: Agenda: 23 June Telecon Roberto Castaldo
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Joe Clark
• Re: Need 1.1 L1 SC basic requirement to provide text alternative Wendy A Chisholm
• Need 1.1 L1 SC basic requirement to provide text alternative Michael Cooper
• Reminder: Call starts early today John M Slatin
• Re: Validation: what criteria in L1, L2 or L3?... Tina Holmboe
• R: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Roberto Castaldo
• Parsing and extracting information (valid or not) Johannes Koch
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Christophe Strobbe
• Validation: what criteria in L1, L2 or L3?... Maurizio Boscarol
• regrets for today's call (06/23) Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Regrets (RE: Agenda: 23 June Telecon) WATANABE Takayuki
• Re: checklist prototype info@lucamascaro.info
• Re: checklist prototype Gez Lemon
• Re: checklist prototype boland@nist.gov
• Validity and Well-formedness Jens Meiert
• Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?) David Dorward
• Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?) Gez Lemon
• Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?) David Dorward
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Jason White
• RE: Summing up the debate about validity at Priority 1 or 2 Bailey, Bruce
• checklist prototype Ben Caldwell

Wednesday, 22 June 2005

• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Neil Whiteley
• Reasons to move validity back to P1 Gez Lemon
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Jason White
• Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?) Gez Lemon
• RE: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?) Neil Whiteley
• XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?) David Dorward
• Re: Agenda: 23 June Telecon lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: remove validity completely? Joe Clark
• FW: Summing up the debate about validity at Priority 1 or 2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: remove validity completely? Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Summing up the debate about validity at Priority 1 or 2 Joe Clark
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Neil Whiteley
• remove validity completely? David MacDonald
• Re: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! Ineke van der Maat
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Mike Barta
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Neil Whiteley
• Re: [techs] examples for techniques requirements document Joe Clark
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Guideline 1.3 SC Ben Caldwell
• RE: content arranged in a sequence that affects meaning John M Slatin
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Tina Holmboe
• Re: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! Tina Holmboe
• content arranged in a sequence that affects meaning Ben Caldwell
• [techs] examples for techniques requirements document Wendy A Chisholm
• testing (no need to respond, still testing archives) Wendy A Chisholm
• testing (no need to respond, testing archives) Wendy A Chisholm
• RE: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! Gregg Vanderheiden
• Not over til its over - hang in there whatever your view(s). Gregg Vanderheiden
• a note on voluntary standards and policy related standards Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! John M Slatin
• Introduction: Updated version John M Slatin
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Multiple definitions for "baseline" Tim Boland
• Regrets (RE: Agenda: 23 June Telecon) Yvette Hoitink
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? Lisa Seeman
• Re: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! Gez Lemon
• RE: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• NEW: Issue #1534 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• RE: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! John M Slatin
• Agenda: 23 June Telecon John M Slatin
• ♦Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Sailesh Panchang
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Jason White

Tuesday, 21 June 2005

• RE: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! Neil Whiteley
• Re: perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! Gez Lemon
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 22 June 2005 Michael Cooper
• Sorry about double posting Lisa Seeman
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Lisa Seeman
• RE: test Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• test David MacDonald
• perhaps remove the requirement for validity completely! David MacDonald
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Joe Clark
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Christophe Strobbe
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Lisa Seeman
• R: R: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Castaldo
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? Jens Meiert
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Tina Holmboe
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? David Dorward
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Jens Meiert
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Gez Lemon
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Tina Holmboe
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Maurizio Boscarol
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)

Monday, 20 June 2005

• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Gez Lemon
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Maurizio Boscarol
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Maurizio Boscarol
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Gez Lemon
• Re: R: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Maurizio Boscarol
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Maurizio Boscarol
• R: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Castaldo
• RE: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Joe Clark
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Gez Lemon
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Tina Holmboe
• RE: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Mike Barta
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Maurizio Boscarol
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) John M Slatin
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Isofarro
• RE: Fwd: Re: [TECHS] Sample Scripting Techniques with baseline information (fwd) John M Slatin
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Ineke van der Maat
• Re: Fwd: Re: [TECHS] Sample Scripting Techniques with baseline information (fwd) Isofarro
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) John M Slatin
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Ineke van der Maat
• FW: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) John M Slatin
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) David Dorward
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Ineke van der Maat
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Gez Lemon
• RE: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Mike Barta
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) John M Slatin
• Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Maurizio Boscarol
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Matt May
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Joe Clark
• RE: Another resource re: testability of WCAG2.0 guidelines and success criteria John M Slatin
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? Bailey, Bruce
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) John M Slatin
• RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? Bailey, Bruce
• Another resource re: testability of WCAG2.0 guidelines and success criteria Tim Boland
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Joe Clark
• Definition of "testable" (was: Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Joe Clark
• Fwd: Re: [TECHS] Sample Scripting Techniques with baseline information (fwd) Joe Clark
• Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Maurizio Boscarol
• Should validity be P1 or P2? (was Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers) Bailey, Bruce
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Matt May
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Tim Boland
• RE: Draft Introduction to WCAG 2.0 Tim Boland
• Re: HTML/XHTML, mime-types, Strict & Transitional [was Re: Semantics] David Dorward
• RE: HTML/XHTML, mime-types, Strict & Transitional [was Re: Semantics] Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? David Dorward
• Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days) Bailey, Bruce
• HTML/XHTML, mime-types, Strict & Transitional [was Re: Semantics] David Dorward
• Re: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Christophe Strobbe
• RE: Draft Introduction to WCAG 2.0 Yvette Hoitink
• Draft Introduction to WCAG 2.0 John M Slatin

Sunday, 19 June 2005

• R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Castaldo
• R: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Castaldo
• RE: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Joe Clark
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Maurizio Boscarol

Saturday, 18 June 2005

• Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) Gez Lemon
• RE: About tests 37-41 (headers) David MacDonald
• RE: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Tina Holmboe
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Matt May
• Why is important require well-formed, validity and richness in XHTML by examples Luca Mascaro
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Maurizio Boscarol
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Tina Holmboe
• RE: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Bailey, Bruce
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Tina Holmboe
• RE: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Luca Mascaro
• RE: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Luca Mascaro
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)

Friday, 17 June 2005

• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Matt May
• 《EC商务周刊-资讯版》(2005年第22期 总第54期) www.ec.com.cn
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Matt May
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Matt May
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Isofarro
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Isofarro
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Matt May
• Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates) Gez Lemon
• Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] Joe Clark
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Joe Clark
• Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates) Christophe Strobbe
• Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates Gez Lemon
• RE: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Yvette Hoitink
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Castaldo
• RE: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates Yvette Hoitink
• Re : Influence of valid code (generically) Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• Done - Revisited Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Matt May
• Re: Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Matt May
• Re: 2 levels or 3 Matt May

Thursday, 16 June 2005

• FW: 4.2 notes/proposals Gregg Vanderheiden
• Over Gregg Vanderheiden
• 2.3 Guideline revisions proposal Gregg Vanderheiden
• 2 levels or 3 Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Gez Lemon
• Over Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re : Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Castaldo
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Joe Clark
• RE: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates Ben Caldwell
• Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) Vicente Luque Centeno
• Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) Vicente Luque Centeno
• Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) Vicente Luque Centeno
• RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Luca Mascaro
• RE: Validation as test for basic accessibility Bailey, Bruce

Wednesday, 15 June 2005

• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days kerstin
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days kerstin
• Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) Chris Ridpath
• Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) Joe Clark
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Matt May
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Ineke van der Maat
• RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days David MacDonald
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Matt May
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• [TECHS] Sample Scripting Techniques with baseline information Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Matt May
• Re: Validation as test for basic accessibility Matt May
• RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• About tests 37-41 (headers) Vicente Luque Centeno
• About test 13 (client side image-maps) Vicente Luque Centeno
• Re: Validation as test for basic accessibility Vicente Luque Centeno
• WCAG formalization (rewriting WCAG HTML techniques as automatable rules) Vicente Luque Centeno
• RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
• Validation as test for basic accessibility Bailey, Bruce
• RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Mike Barta
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Wendy Chisholm
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• GL 2.2: updated proposals Christophe Strobbe
• CLOSED: Issue #777 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• CLOSED: Issue #1259 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• CLOSED: Issue #659 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• CLOSED: Issue #1422 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu

Tuesday, 14 June 2005

• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Matt May
• 1.4 background sound David MacDonald
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Jens Meiert
• Changes.. Wendy
• Re: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Joe Clark
• RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• YOUR PASSWORD HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY UPDATED webmaster@w3.org
• Re: Proposals from June 13 Face to Face Tim Boland
• RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Level 3 Tim Boland
• RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Bailey, Bruce
• RE: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
• Re: R: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers info@lucamascaro.info
• R: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• Re: Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Jason White

Monday, 13 June 2005

• Proposals from June 13 Face to Face Ben Caldwell
• Re-post: Influence of valid code on screen readers Joe Clark
• Re: Definition of "semantics" Jens Meiert
• Re: Definition of "semantics" Joe Clark
• Re: Definition of "semantics" Jens Meiert
• Re: Definition of "semantics" Joe Clark
• Re: Level 3 Jason White
• Re: Definition of "semantics" Jason White

Sunday, 12 June 2005

• Re: Definition of "semantics" Jens Meiert
• Definition of "semantics" Joe Clark

Saturday, 11 June 2005

• RE: Level 3 Joe Clark
• NEW: Issue #1533 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu

Friday, 10 June 2005

• RE: Protected message Wendy
• Updated Survey for 4.1 Ben Caldwell
• 3.2 Proposal version 2 Li, Alex
• NEW: Issue #1531 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1530 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• Updated survey for Guideline 2.5 Wendy Chisholm
• Updated survey for guideline 3.1 Wendy Chisholm
• Re: Late Regrets: 9 June 2005 Agenda [================================= WATANABE Takayuki
• Late Regrets: 9 June 2005 Agenda [================================= Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. -

Thursday, 9 June 2005

• Input for F2F on Guide and general techniques David MacDonald
• Regrets: 9 June 2005 Agenda (for Luca Mascaro) Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG

Friday, 10 June 2005

• Regrets: 9 June 2005 Agenda [================================= Roberto Castaldo

Wednesday, 8 June 2005

• Updated: 9 June 2005 Agenda Wendy Chisholm
• Issue summary for the guidelines document in general Wendy Chisholm
• Re: Issue Summary 1.4 Tim Boland
• 9 June 2005 Agenda [================================= Gregg Vanderheiden
• Conformance Issues Andi Snow-Weaver
• RE: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages Li, Alex
• GL 2.5 Remaining 3 issues Andi Snow-Weaver
• Issue Summary 1.4 Gregg Vanderheiden
• CLOSED: Issue #478 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• CLOSED: Issue #503 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• Updated proposal for Guideline 1.1 Wendy Chisholm
• NEW: Issue #1528 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1529 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 08 June 2005 boland@nist.gov

Tuesday, 7 June 2005

• Re: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages Matt May
• RE: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 08 June 2005 John M Slatin
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 08 June 2005 Michael Cooper
• * Can we Start 1 hour early for Thursday call???? Gregg Vanderheiden
• [2.1] Guideline summary and new proposal Yvette Hoitink
• RE: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages John M Slatin
• Re: 3.1: Action item re foreign passages Tim Boland
• 3.1: Action item re foreign passages John M Slatin
• Agenda for Techniques portion of Face to Face, 15 - 16 June 2005 Michael Cooper
• CLOSED: Issue #1355 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• 3.1: Another update John M Slatin

Monday, 6 June 2005

• [TECHS] Review of SC with respect to Scripting and baseline issues. Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: Level 3 Gregg Vanderheiden
• Level 3 Matt May
• Re: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) Ineke van der Maat
• RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) John M Slatin
• RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) Joe Clark

Sunday, 5 June 2005

• RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) Joe Clark
• RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) Gregg Vanderheiden
• GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy) Christophe Strobbe

Saturday, 4 June 2005

• CLOSED: Issue #965 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu

Friday, 3 June 2005

• Reminder: straw poll for 2.4 Yvette Hoitink
• Agenda: 13-16 June meeting in Brussels John M Slatin
• [techs] [Fwd: ACCESSKEY heats up] Wendy Chisholm

Thursday, 2 June 2005

• [minutes] 2 June 2005 telecon Wendy Chisholm
• [1.3] Alternative proposal for guideline text Yvette Hoitink
• regrets for today's call Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• Re: 3.1: Another update to the proposal Lisa Seeman
• Regrets: Agenda: 2 June 2005 Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. -

Friday, 3 June 2005

• Regrets: Agenda: 2 June 2005 Roberto Castaldo

Thursday, 2 June 2005

• Re: Agenda Update: 2 June 2005 boland@nist.gov
• RE: Text being imperceptible (allegedly) boland@nist.gov
• Provide Feedback on Straw poll forms Gregg Vanderheiden

Wednesday, 1 June 2005

• RE: Text being imperceptible (allegedly) John M Slatin
• Text being imperceptible (allegedly) Joe Clark
• Agenda Update: 2 June 2005 John M Slatin
• [techs] Minutes for 01 June Techniques teleconference Michael Cooper
• RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary Li, Alex
• Agenda: 2 June 2005 John M Slatin
• Re: Updated proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC2 Joe Clark
• Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 01 June 2005 boland@nist.gov
• RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary John M Slatin
• June 1 Draft Ben Caldwell
• RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary Li, Alex
• Re: Freedom of speech (Was RE: Another update to the proposal) Avi Arditti
• Freedom of speech (Was RE: Another update to the proposal) Yvette Hoitink
• Re: Another update to the proposal Ineke van der Maat
• 3.1: Another update to the proposal John M Slatin
• CLOSED: Issue #802 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• CLOSED: Issue #1501 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• CLOSED: Issue #1225 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• CLOSED: Issue #1500 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• regrets, June 2 lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: Updated proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC2 Jason White

Tuesday, 31 May 2005

• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 01 June 2005 Michael Cooper
• Updated proposal for GL 1.3 L1 SC2 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• [2.4] New proposal for guideline 2.4 Yvette Hoitink
• Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Tim Boland

Monday, 30 May 2005

• Re: Hello Wendy

Saturday, 28 May 2005

• Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Ineke van der Maat
• CLOSED: Issue #1457 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Gregg Vanderheiden

Friday, 27 May 2005

• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Yvette Hoitink
• Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Ineke van der Maat
• Re: Usability issues in Ajax/Web applications (with implications for accessibility) Jens Meiert
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Yvette Hoitink
• Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Ineke van der Maat
• RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Joe Clark
• RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Joe Clark
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Gregg Vanderheiden
• points to Ponder Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Usability issues in Ajax/Web applications (with implications for accessibility) Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call John M Slatin
• Usability issues in Ajax/Web applications (with implications for accessibility) Joe Clark
• Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Ineke van der Maat
• Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Ineke van der Maat
• RE: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Yvette Hoitink
• RE: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Tim Boland
• Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Ineke van der Maat
• RE: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call John M Slatin
• Re: 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call Tim Boland
• 3.1: Proposal with updates from 26 May call John M Slatin
• (very minor) addition to 25 May 2005 WCAG TTF minutes? Tim Boland
• Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Ineke van der Maat
• Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Jason White
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half 2 Gregg Vanderheiden

Thursday, 26 May 2005

• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Joe Clark
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half 2 Joe Clark
• Re: 3.1: Proposal with several updated SC Joe Clark
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Joe Clark
• [minutes] 26 May 2005 telecon Wendy Chisholm
• Regrets: Agenda: 26 May 2005 Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Christophe Strobbe
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Ineke van der Maat
• regrets: Agenda: 26 May 2005 Roberto Ellero
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Carlos A Velasco
• Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Ineke van der Maat
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half John M Slatin
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half 2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Joe Clark
• Regrets: Agenda: 26 May 2005 ========================= WATANABE Takayuki
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: RE 3.1 proposal - first half John M Slatin
• Re: Agenda: 26 May 2005 ========================= Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. -
• Re: RE 3.1 proposal - first half Ineke van der Maat
• 3.1 REQUIRING NON-TEXT ALTERNATES TO TEXT Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE 3.1 proposal - first half Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Jason White
• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions Jason White
• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions Jason White
• RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary Jason White
• Re: Responses to comments on GL 3.1 proposal Jason White

Wednesday, 25 May 2005

• Re: Agenda: 26 May 2005 ========================= Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• RE: GL 3.2 proposal and summary John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: Agenda: 26 May 2005 (with corrected guideline 2.2 survey link) Ben Caldwell
• Agenda: 26 May 2005 ========================= Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions Joe Clark
• Responses to comments on GL 3.1 proposal John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Christophe Strobbe
• Re: 3.1: Proposal with several updated SC Jason White

Tuesday, 24 May 2005

• Re: GL 3.2 proposal and summary Loretta Guarino Reid
• 3.1: Proposal with several updated SC John M Slatin
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 25 May 2005 Michael Cooper
• Guideline 4.1 (use-spec) Issue Summary Ben Caldwell
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Christophe Strobbe
• GL 3.2 proposal and summary Li, Alex
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: [TECHS] Techniques issues summary for Guideline 2.5 David MacDonald
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 [definition of text] Christophe Strobbe
• Re: "Accessibility features" Jason White
• GL 2.2 proposals and issue summary Christophe Strobbe
• RE: [TECHS] Techniques issues summary for Guideline 2.5 Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Outside expert opinion on Web standards and WCAG (especially GL 1.3) Jason White
• Re: "Accessibility features" Jason White

Monday, 23 May 2005

• Re: "Accessibility features" lguarino@adobe.com
• [TECHS] Techniques issues summary for Guideline 2.5 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: Ill-defined terms in WCAG 2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• Outside expert opinion on Web standards and WCAG (especially GL 1.3) Joe Clark
• Ill-defined terms in WCAG 2 Joe Clark
• "Accessibility features" Joe Clark
• Further articles documenting the sense of "semantics" Joe Clark
• Items to keep in mind for Principle 3: "Content and controls must be understandable" Joe Clark
• Re: Bugzilla down? Ben Caldwell
• Bugzilla down? Li, Alex
• Re: [minutes] 19 May 2005 WCAG WG telecon lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: move proposed SC to GL 1.3? lguarino@adobe.com

Saturday, 21 May 2005

• NEW: Issue #1526 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu

Friday, 20 May 2005

• [4.1] Article on when to create custom DTD's (and when not to) John M Slatin
• CLOSED: Issue #180 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• late regrets: David MacDonald

Thursday, 19 May 2005

• Re: [minutes] 19 May 2005 WCAG WG telecon Joe Clark
• [minutes] 19 May 2005 WCAG WG telecon Wendy Chisholm
• Regrets: Agenda 19 May 2005 Roberto Castaldo
• Regrets for today's call (05/19) Roberto Ellero
• Regrets for today's call (05/19) Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• RE: Agenda + Announcement: 19 May 2005 Yvette Hoitink
• Re: Regrets for this evening WATANABE Takayuki
• Regrets for this evening (R. Scano and L. Mascaro) Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• Re: addition proposal, GL 4.2 Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• NEW: Issue #1525 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• RE: addition proposal, GL 4.2 Jason White

Wednesday, 18 May 2005

• possible regrets for Thursday plus suggestion? Tim Boland
• RE: addition proposal, GL 4.2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: addition proposal, GL 4.2 Michael Cooper
• Agenda + Announcement: 19 May 2005 John M Slatin
• RE: GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal Andi Snow-Weaver

Tuesday, 17 May 2005

• ISSUE SuMMARY for 2.3 Avoiding Content that provokes siezures Gregg Vanderheiden
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 18 May 2005 Michael Cooper

Monday, 16 May 2005

• Re: move proposed SC to GL 1.3? Joe Clark
• [techs] regrets for Wednesday's WCAG TTF call Tim Boland
• Re: addition proposal, GL 4.2 Joe Clark
• RE: [Techs] proposed definitions re: my May 11 WCAG TTF Action Item John M Slatin
• GL 4.2: Revised modification to the conformance section lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: [Techs] proposed definitions re: my May 11 WCAG TTF Action Item Lisa Seeman
• addition proposal, GL 4.2 lguarino@adobe.com
• [Techs] proposed definitions re: my May 11 WCAG TTF Action Item Tim Boland

Saturday, 14 May 2005

• Re: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send) Jason White
• Re: RE: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send) lguarino@adobe.com

Friday, 13 May 2005

• RE: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send) John M Slatin
• RE: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, John M Slatin
• Late regrets: Agenda: 12 May 2005 Roberto Ellero
• RE: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, Mike Barta
• move proposed SC to GL 1.3? Loretta Guarino Reid
• Re: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send) Joe Clark
• Re: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, Tim Boland
• Re: Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send) Jason White
• Declaring educational level Jason White
• late Regrets: Agenda update: 12 May 2005 WATANABE Takayuki
• changing state and value programmatically Loretta Guarino Reid

Thursday, 12 May 2005

• Bare-bones proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" (re-send) Joe Clark
• Regrets for 12 May 2005 call Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• Regrets: Agenda: 12 May 2005 Neil Soiffer
• Regrets: Agenda: 12 May 2005 Roberto Castaldo
• Re: JavaScript action example Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs WATANABE Takayuki
• JavaScript action example Joe Clark
• Agenda addendum: link to proposed SC for GL 1.3 John M Slatin
• Regrets (RE: Agenda update: 12 May 2005) Yvette Hoitink
• Why 2GL .4 isn't on the agenda this week John M Slatin
• Agenda update: 12 May 2005 John M Slatin
• Baseline definition Loretta Guarino Reid

Wednesday, 11 May 2005

• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions lguarino@adobe.com
• [w3c-wai-gl] <none> Ben Caldwell
• Re: Agenda: 12 May 2005 Tim Boland
• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions Sailesh Panchang
• Re: [techs] Minutes of 11 May 2005 Techniques teleconference Ben Caldwell
• RE: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs Joe Clark
• [techs] Minutes of 11 May 2005 Techniques teleconference Michael Cooper
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline Neil Soiffer
• RE: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs John M Slatin
• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: Implications of proposed baseline definitions John M Slatin
• Re: Implications of proposed baseline definitions Tim Boland
• Fwd: Test Development FAQ released Tim Boland
• Implications of proposed baseline definitions Jason White
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline 'Jason White'

Tuesday, 10 May 2005

• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 11 May 2005 Michael Cooper
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• regrets Luca Mascaro
• Re: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs Lisa Seeman
• regrets Lisa Seeman
• RE: working definition of baseline Michael Cooper
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Michael Cooper
• Agenda: 12 May 2005 John M Slatin
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline 'Jason White'

Monday, 9 May 2005

• [Techs] Regrets for Wednesday John M Slatin
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline 'Jason White'
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline 'Jason White'
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline Jason White
• RE: (1.3) Validation and semantics recap John M Slatin
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline John M Slatin
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline Jason White

Sunday, 8 May 2005

• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden

Saturday, 7 May 2005

• Re: RE: working definition of baseline lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Jason White
• Re: working definition of baseline Jason White
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline Jason White
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline Jason White

Friday, 6 May 2005

• Re: RE: working definition of baseline lguarino@adobe.com
• (1.3) Validation and semantics recap Joe Clark
• RE: working definition of baseline John M Slatin
• RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: working definition of baseline lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline Tim Boland
• RE: RE: working definition of baseline John M Slatin
• RE: working definition of baseline Mike Barta
• Re: RE: working definition of baseline lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: working definition of baseline John M Slatin
• RE: working definition of baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: [Techs-scripting]FW: setting focus on a form field using javascript Jim Ley
• Stevie Wonder does music video with audio description John M Slatin
• [Techs-scripting]FW: setting focus on a form field using javascript John M Slatin
• Re: working definition of baseline Jason White
• Re: working definition of baseline Jason White
• Re: working definition of baseline Alan Chuter
• Re: working definition of baseline Jason White

Thursday, 5 May 2005

• working definition of baseline lguarino@adobe.com
• about semantical use of markup Luca Mascaro
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Yvette Hoitink
• regrets: Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005 Roberto Ellero
• User agent assumptions - vs - baseline Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal John M Slatin
• Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal John M Slatin
• Re: GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal Ben Caldwell
• Regrets: Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005 Neil Soiffer
• Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Ben Caldwell
• RE: RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Yvette Hoitink
• Regrets: Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005 Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• Regrets: Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005 WATANABE Takayuki
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal John M Slatin
• Re: RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal John M Slatin
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Tim Boland
• Agenda with updated links: 5 May 2005 John M Slatin
• Re: RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Li, Alex
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Jason White
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal John M Slatin
• RE: 3.1 comments John M Slatin
• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: 3.1 comments Ineke van der Maat

Wednesday, 4 May 2005

• RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal John M Slatin
• Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Andi Snow-Weaver
• 3.1 Issue summary John M Slatin
• RE: [2.4] Proposal for guideline 2.4 Yvette Hoitink
• 3.1 comments Lisa Seeman
• RE: [TECHS] Techniques Issues for Guideline 1.3 - plain text version Joe Clark
• Re: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs Joe Clark
• Re: [2.4] Proposal for guideline 2.4 Andi Snow-Weaver
• regrets for 5 May telecon Christophe Strobbe
• RE: Agenda: 5 May 2005 Li, Alex
• RE: [TECHS] Techniques Issues for Guideline 1.3 - plain text version John M Slatin
• overview of 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs Lisa Seeman
• Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal Yvette Hoitink
• Agenda: 5 May 2005 John M Slatin
• programmatically determined Lisa Seeman
• 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs John M Slatin
• NEW: Issue #1523 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1524 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• Revised Proposal, GL 4.2 Loretta Guarino Reid

Tuesday, 3 May 2005

• GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal Andi Snow-Weaver
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 04 May 2005 Michael Cooper
• RE: RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Loretta Guarino Reid
• [tech] 4.2 Summary David MacDonald
• [techs] requirements updated Michael Cooper
• RE: Guideline 1.3 and user interface changes Gregg Vanderheiden
• The next WCAG WG face-to-face will be in Brussels 13-16 June Gregg Vanderheiden
• [techs] Please review issue summaries Michael Cooper
• [2.4] Proposal for guideline 2.4 Yvette Hoitink
• Fwd: [PUBLICATION] QA Specification Tim Boland
• [tech] re: regrets Wed (will have 4.2 by tommorrow) David MacDonald
• [tech] re: regrets Wed (will have 4.2 by tommorrow) David MacDonald
• [tech] re: regrets Wed (will have 4.2 by tommorrow) David MacDonald
• RE: RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" John M Slatin

Monday, 2 May 2005

• Re: Requiring ATAG conformance Matt May
• Re: RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" lguarino@adobe.com
• Requiring ATAG conformance lguarino@adobe.com
• [TECHS] Techniques Issues for Guideline 1.3 - plain text version Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• {TECHS] Techniques Issues for Guideline 1.3 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• [techs] Review of techniques issues for Guideline 2.4 Michael Cooper
• RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Tim Boland
• RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Joe Clark
• RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" John M Slatin

Sunday, 1 May 2005

• RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Jason White
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Gregg Vanderheiden

Saturday, 30 April 2005

• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Jason White
• RE: Guideline 1.3 and user interface changes Jason White

Friday, 29 April 2005

• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Gregg Vanderheiden
• Sign language video John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7) John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7) Yvette Hoitink
• Late regrets for 28 April 2005 call Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. -
• Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Jason White
• [minutes] 28 April 2005 WCAG WG telecon Wendy Chisholm
• [minutes] 27 April Techniques Task Force of the WCAG WG telecon Wendy Chisholm

Thursday, 28 April 2005

• Guideline 1.3 and user interface changes Jason White
• Late regrets for 28 April 2005 call Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• [1.1] Proposal for new example Yvette Hoitink
• RE: Unicode encodings Mike Barta
• RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Joe Clark
• Re: RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4) Joe Clark
• RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4) Wendy Chisholm
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7) John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4) John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7) John M Slatin
• Re: RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4) lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7) Joe Clark
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4) Joe Clark
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Functional text content) John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Definition of content) Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Definition of functionality) John M Slatin
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Definition of content) John M Slatin
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (ASCII art) John M Slatin
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 8) John M Slatin
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (Example 7) John M Slatin
• regrets: Agenda: 28 April 2005 Roberto Ellero
• RE: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4) John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Joe Clark
• Re: Proposal for Guideline 1.1 (specifcally about L1 SC4) John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible John M Slatin
• Re: Regrets: Agenda: 28 April 2005 WATANABE Takayuki
• Regrets: Agenda: 28 April 2005 Roberto Castaldo
• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Joe Clark
• RE: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable" John M Slatin
• RE: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable" John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible lguarino@adobe.com
• FW: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible John M Slatin
• Fwd: Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable" boland@nist.gov
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible John M Slatin
• Re: [Techs] Kurzweil 3000 and WYNN zebra strips Bailey, Bruce
• double regrets info@lucamascaro.info
• Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Jason White
• NEW: Issue #1521 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1522 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• Re: Graceful degradation (was: Re: Issues summary, GL 4.2) Jason White
• Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Jason White

Wednesday, 27 April 2005

• RE: [Techs]Kurzweil 3000 and WYNN zebra strips John M Slatin
• RE: [Techs]Kurzweil 3000 and WYNN zebra strips Joe Clark
• Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible John M Slatin
• Re: Graceful degradation (was: Re: Issues summary, GL 4.2) lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: [Techs]Kurzweil 3000 and WYNN zebra strips David MacDonald
• RE: [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable" John M Slatin
• [Techs] Definition of "Reliably human testable" John M Slatin
• RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible John M Slatin
• Graceful degradation (was: Re: Issues summary, GL 4.2) Joe Clark
• Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Joe Clark
• Re: [techs] Techniques for Guideline 1.3 Joe Clark
• Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: Agenda: 28 April 2005 Yvette Hoitink
• Agenda: 28 April 2005 John M Slatin
• Re: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Lisa Seeman
• [techs] Changes in requirements doc Michael Cooper
• Proposal for Guideline 1.1 Wendy Chisholm
• Issues summary, GL 4.2 Loretta Guarino Reid

Tuesday, 26 April 2005

• Re: [script-techs] Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Tom Wright
• Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible Loretta Guarino Reid
• Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005 boland@nist.gov
• Re: [techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005 Wendy Chisholm
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 27 April 2005 Michael Cooper
• [techs] Updated requirements for techniques and checklists Michael Cooper
• [techs] Techniques for Guideline 4.2 Michael Cooper
• [techs] Techniques for Guideline 2.4 Michael Cooper
• [techs] Techniques for Guideline 1.3 Michael Cooper
• [techs] Techniques for Guideline 1.1 Michael Cooper
• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Wendy Chisholm
• [TECHS] Possible Scripting Techniques with Guideline Mappings Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Joe Clark
• [2.4] Proposals for 2.4 Yvette Hoitink
• RE: HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries) Jason White

Monday, 25 April 2005

• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: [script-techs] Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Isofarro
• RE: Accessible quotation style in email (was Re: HTML messages) John M Slatin
• RE: Accessible quotation style in email (was Re: HTML messages) Joe Clark
• Re: Accessible quotation style in email (was Re: HTML messages) David Dorward
• RE: Accessible quotation style in email (was Re: HTML messages) John M Slatin
• Regrets for 27 & 28 April telecons Christophe Strobbe
• RE: HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries) Yvette Hoitink
• RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" John M Slatin
• Accessible quotation style in email (was Re: HTML messages) David Dorward
• RE: HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries) John M Slatin
• WAI CSS and WCAG conformance pages (was: W3C style sheet fix (needed for WCAG conformance pages)) Jens Meiert
• RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 Tim Boland
• RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Joe Clark
• RE: HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries) Yvette Hoitink
• HTML messages (was: Re: Please comment on issue summaries) Jens Meiert
• Re: Please comment on issue summaries Lisa Seeman
• RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Jason White
• RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 Jason White
• RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Jason White
• RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" boland@nist.gov

Sunday, 24 April 2005

• RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 John M Slatin
• RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" John M Slatin
• Re: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: Loretta's analysis of UAAG Guideline 9 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: Guideline 4.2 Subgroup Report Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• re: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com

Saturday, 23 April 2005

• RE: UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary John M Slatin
• RE: Wendy's analysis of UAAG Guideline 6 John M Slatin
• RE: Loretta's analysis of UAAG Guideline 9 John M Slatin
• [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 John M Slatin
• Please comment on issue summaries John M Slatin
• RE: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Christophe Strobbe
• NEW: Issue #1520 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu

Friday, 22 April 2005

• Unicode encodings Joe Clark
• RE: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Richard Ishida
• Re: non-text content Wendy Chisholm
• Definition of information (was RE: non-text content) John M Slatin
• Re: issue 1214. 2.4: 1194.22-like SC should be level 1 [21] Wendy Chisholm
• RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 John M Slatin
• Regrets for next week for me also Tim Boland
• Late regrets: Agenda for Thursday 21 April Roberto Castaldo
• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Christophe Strobbe

Thursday, 21 April 2005

• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Christophe Strobbe
• Early Regrets - April 28th Doyle-Work
• One model for validation of JavaScript (vaguely related to 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation") Joe Clark
• Regrets for next week Ben Caldwell
• Re: non-text content Joe Clark
• IRC log isn't what we're talking about Joe Clark
• [minutes] 21 April 2005 telecon Wendy Chisholm
• non-text content Gregg Vanderheiden
• issue 1214. 2.4: 1194.22-like SC should be level 1 [21] Gregg Vanderheiden
• [techs] minutes from April 20 telecon Michael Cooper
• Re: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 Wendy Chisholm
• Regrets: Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. -
• Re: Agenda: 21 April 2005 Neil Soiffer
• Re: [script-techs] Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Isofarro
• Regrets: Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April WATANABE Takayuki
• Re: Agenda: 21 April 2005 Andi Snow-Weaver
• [script-techs] Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Tom Wright
• Triple Regrets: Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Lisa Seeman

Wednesday, 20 April 2005

• [Techs]Window-Eyes info for matrix John M Slatin
• [Techs] JAWS info for matrix John M Slatin
• Re: Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Isofarro
• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Wendy Chisholm
• Re: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Tim Boland
• [Fwd: Re: Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation] Isofarro
• Re: Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Isofarro
• RE: Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Richard Ishida
• Re: [TECHS] draft introduction to client side scripting techniques Ben Caldwell
• Thinking aloud...Definitions (pre-Guideline 1.1 summary) Wendy Chisholm
• Dublin Core Accessibility element John M Slatin
• Agenda (updated) for Thursday 21 April John M Slatin
• FW: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 John M Slatin
• [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 Yvette Hoitink
• Re: Proposed planning framework Lisa Seeman
• RE: UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary John M Slatin
• Agenda: 21 April 2005 John M Slatin

Tuesday, 19 April 2005

• Re: UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary Joe Clark
• Regrets for Techniques Teleconference 20 April 2005 Joe Clark
• Loretta's analysis of UAAG Guideline 9 Loretta Guarino Reid
• Wendy's analysis of UAAG Guideline 6 Loretta Guarino Reid
• Resend of planning example Wendy Chisholm
• Wendy's analysis of web applications vs user agents Loretta Guarino Reid
• UAAG Priority 1 checkpoint analysis summary Loretta Guarino Reid
• Guideline 4.2 Subgroup Report Loretta Guarino Reid
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 20 April 2005 Wendy Chisholm
• Proposed planning framework Wendy Chisholm
• Re: Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Jim Ley
• [TECHS] draft introduction to client side scripting techniques Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Possible Scripting Techniques to help with baseline evaluation Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Re: Strange behavior of mail archive? Wendy Chisholm
• RE: Issue summary for 1.3: "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" John M Slatin
• Issue summary for 1.3: "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Joe Clark
• Strange behavior of mail archive? John M Slatin
• regrets for 4/20 call Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• Re: Need for exemptions for teaching materials, samples, multilingual documents Jason White
• Re: Need for exemptions for teaching materials, samples, multilingual documents Chris Ridpath

Monday, 18 April 2005

• Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" Joe Clark
• Need for exemptions for teaching materials, samples, multilingual documents Joe Clark
• RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 John M Slatin
• [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4 Yvette Hoitink

Thursday, 14 April 2005

• Guide doc: resend of Wendy's HTML-Techs mockup John M Slatin
• Re: Guide doc: Drafts to discuss on Thursday John M Slatin
• Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• Agenda correction: Today's call starts same time as always John M Slatin
• regrets: Agenda Thursday 14 April Roberto Ellero
• [minutes] 13 April 2005 TTF telecon Wendy Chisholm
• Regrets: Agenda: Thursday 14 April Roberto Castaldo
• RE: _Tech] Release date for Mac screen reader Jenae Andershonis
• _Tech] Release date for Mac screen reader John M Slatin
• Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• Regrets: Agenda: Thursday 14 April WATANABE Takayuki
• Re: [Techs] Divide Techniques docs into chapters? Jason White

Wednesday, 13 April 2005

• Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April Andi Snow-Weaver
• [Techs] Divide Techniques docs into chapters? John M Slatin
• imporved accessibility metadata paper Lisa Seeman
• Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April Neil Soiffer
• RE: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78¸ 79, 27, 128, 129, 183 John M Slatin
• Re: Agenda: Thursday 14 April Tim Boland
• Re: HTML Techniques16.1, 10.6 baseline Discussion Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• Re: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78¸ 79, 27, 128, 129, 183 Chris Ridpath
• Agenda: Thursday 14 April John M Slatin
• Guide doc: Drafts to discuss on Thursday John M Slatin
• List of HTML Techniques not affected by baseline and list of affected David MacDonald
• HTML Techniques16.1, 10.6 baseline Discussion David MacDonald

Tuesday, 12 April 2005

• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 13 April 2005 Wendy Chisholm
• RE: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78¸ 79, 27, 128, 129, 183 David MacDonald

Monday, 11 April 2005

• Re: Example of baseline information included in HTML Technique 12.4 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Example of baseline information included in HTML Technique 12.4 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Example of Baseline information included in HTML Technique 5.11 Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy' Bailey, Bruce
• Re: [Fwd: RE: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy'] Wendy Chisholm
• Re: [TECHS] Object tag test files. Chris Ridpath
• Re: [TECHS] Object tag test files. Jason White
• Re: [TECHS] Object tag test files. Chris Ridpath

Sunday, 10 April 2005

• RE: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy' Neil Whiteley
• Re: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy' Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Re: WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy' Jason White

Saturday, 9 April 2005

• WARNING: Yet another virus sent by 'Wendy' Yvette P. Hoitink
• RE: Definition of "baseline" Jason White
• RE: Definition of "baseline" Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Definition of "baseline" Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Definition of "baseline" Jason White

Friday, 8 April 2005

• RE: Screen Reader Supported Languages Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• RE: Screen Reader Supported Languages Andres Gonzalez
• Screen Reader Supported Languages Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
• Conformance Requirements proposal Andi Snow-Weaver
• Re: Definition of "baseline" Andi Snow-Weaver
• More info about new JAWS 6.10 features John M Slatin
• FW: [techlunch] JAWS 6.10 Free Update for 6.0 Users Released John M Slatin
• Re: Unifying ATAG and UAAG in 4.2 (or surrogate) Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• RE: Unifying ATAG and UAAG in 4.2 (or surrogate) Jason White

Thursday, 7 April 2005

• RE: Unifying ATAG and UAAG in 4.2 (or surrogate) Yvette P. Hoitink
• Unifying ATAG and UAAG in 4.2 (or surrogate) Joe Clark
• Regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 Neil Soiffer
• regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 Roberto Ellero
• Re: [TECHS] Object tag test files. Joe Clark
• RE: [TECHS] Object tag test files. David MacDonald
• Re: [TECHS] Object tag test files. Doyle-Work
• Regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 Roberto Castaldo
• Re: [TECHS] Object tag test files. Joe Clark
• Regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 WATANABE Takayuki
• [TECHS] Object tag test files. David MacDonald
• Overview of "baseline" (was re: Definition of baseline)def of baseline John M Slatin
• Re: Definition of "baseline" Tim Boland
• Re: Definition of "baseline" Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• Re: Definition of "baseline" Jason White
• Re: Definition of "baseline" Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• NEW: Issue #1499 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1502 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1514 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1513 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1517 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1519 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1515 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1518 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1507 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1512 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1516 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1487 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1509 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1510 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1495 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1494 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1504 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1506 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1511 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1491 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1508 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1505 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1500 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1497 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1490 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1501 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1498 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1503 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1496 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1492 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1493 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1489 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1488 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• NEW: Issue #1486 bugzilla@webby.trace.wisc.edu
• Correction (Re: Issues and proposals: conformance claims) Jason White
• Definition of "baseline" Jason White

Wednesday, 6 April 2005

• RE: Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques Jason White
• Regrets for Thursday 7 April 2005 conference Sebastiano Nutarelli (IWA/HWG)
• RE: Issues and proposals: conformance claims John M Slatin
• Re: Issues and proposals: conformance claims Tim Boland
• RE: Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
• Regrets: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
• RE: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 Jason White
• RE: Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques Jason White
• RE: RE: RE: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: RE: RE: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 Jason White
• Re: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 Jason White
• Re: Issues and proposals: conformance claims Jason White
• Regrets for this week Jason White
• Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques John M Slatin
• RE: RE: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: RE: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 John M Slatin
• Issues and proposals: conformance claims Wendy Chisholm
• Re: RE: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• Re: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 lguarino@adobe.com
• RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 Gregg Vanderheiden
• RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 John M Slatin

Tuesday, 5 April 2005

• Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 lguarino@adobe.com
• Re: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 Doyle-Work
• RE: AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 David MacDonald
• AGENDA for Thursday 7 April 2005 John M Slatin
• [techs] Techniques Teleconference 06 April 2005 Michael Cooper
• Analysis, impact of externalized baseline decision on techniques Michael Cooper

Saturday, 2 April 2005

• RE: Background audio (was: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes) Jason White

Friday, 1 April 2005

• [minutes] 31 March 2005 telecon Wendy Chisholm
• RE: Background audio (was: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes) Gregg Vanderheiden
• Conformance Claims - W3C Logo Use Doyle-Work
• RE: Background audio (was: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes) Yvette P. Hoitink
• RE: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes Mike Barta
• RE: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes Neil Whiteley
• Re: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes Jason White
• RE: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes John M Slatin
• RE: Impact of not setting baseline and writing SC as functional outcomes Mike Barta

Last message date: Thursday, 30 June 2005 20:45:43 UTC