- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:16:32 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi Neil, At 19:34 15/07/2005, Neil Whiteley wrote: ><proposed> >Principle 1. Content must be able to work with current and future >technologies ></proposed> > >Concerning the 4 Principals overall, how is the keyword *must* being >interpreted? Is it understood to mean the same as *MUST* in accordance with >RFC 2119 [RFC2119] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/> or is it >definitely a *must* as sometimes interpreted as an RFC2119 *MAY*? This is the text of the principle, not of a success criterion, so I think this is less critical here. >If it is really a *MUST* then it should be capitalised and there needs to be >a reference somewhere within the documents back to RFC2119. > >If it is really a *must* then it becomes ambiguous. In this case however, I >propose that all 4 Principals (taking into account Johns proposal) could be >written thus: > >1. Content is perceivable >2. User interface components in the content are operable >3. Content and controls are understandable >4. Content is able to work with current and future technologies The principles are high-level and rather abstract guiding rules; they are not sufficiently atomic to make wording with RFC 2119 keywords worthwhile. Moreover, conformance is defined with regard to success criteria, not principles. That said, I can live with a change from "must" to "is/are", but I prefer the current wording. Regards, Christophe Strobbe >Regards, > >Neil Whiteley -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/
Received on Friday, 15 July 2005 18:20:46 UTC