- From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:48:34 -0400
- To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi - with all the proposals and comments zipping back and forth I may have failed to notice this before, but I noticed it now so I'll pick it up. For a definition of baseline, Jason proposed and Gregg modified: > <Gregg and Jason propose> > Any minimum set of technologies assumed to be supported and > enabled in user > agents for the purpose of evaluating conformance of web > content to these > guidelines. > </Gregg and Jason propose> The word that's sticking for me is "evaluating". I think WCAG should be agnostic to evaluation. It is possible for content to be WCAG conformant without being evaluated for conformance - evaluation is necessary for us to know it is WCAG conformant but is not an intrinsic part of the conformance itself. I suggest we avoid that word and come up with a proposal like: <Michael proposal> Any minimum set of technologies assumed to be supported and enabled in user agents for the claim of conformance to these guidelines to be true. </Michael proposal> In addition to removing the evaluation language I wordsmithed out the gerund, an editorial practice I've taken on when I write to an international audience. Michael
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2005 16:48:44 UTC