- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:55:31 +1100
- To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
John M Slatin writes: > > Perhaps "conventional" or "typical" would be better terms to use for > that first sense of the word "standard." For example, it has become > "conventional" to use the link text "More ..." for a link to the > continuation of a news item. By contrast, the HTML standard (in this > case a specification) requires that the link text is enclosed within an > anchor element. John's choice of terminology is excellent. It also avoids the objection that W3C Recommendations are, stricto sensu, not standards. Perhaps we define "conventional and supported manner" to mean: 1. A manner prescribed in a technical specification defining the technologies used to implement the content. 2. A manner which has become customary within the community of Web content developers at large, or among specialists in the design of accessible content. "Supported" would have to be defined in terms of implementation by user agents or other applicable tools (e.g., content validation and testing software). Again, it would have to be decided what the minimum necessary level of implementation was, bringing us back to the difficult question of user agent support.
Received on Saturday, 26 March 2005 07:58:51 UTC