- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:23:37 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <003b01c5ea76$485ef3b0$056fa8c0@NC6000BAK>
Here are some questions form one of the questionairs. I am answering them on also logging them in GL so we can find them when we are building the intro to the "guide Doc" (now the Understanding WCAG 2.0 doc) .what it means to be "known and documented"? GV: it means we know about it and have documented it here. Does this mean that if a technology is mentioned below, only the mentioned techniques are asserted to be sufficient? GV: No - other things may be sufficient as well. these are things that are documented here as things the WG feels are sufficient. Can we explain about other techniques being possible, but needing a strong argument? GV: Yes - that will be in the intro section to the doc. Not sure about 'stronger' part. If a technology isn't mentioned in this SC, but is mentioned in some other SC, can we draw any conclusions about satisfying this SC using that technology? GV: don't know how. Shouldn't be pro or con. Can we explain that no claim, positive or negative, is made about technologies not listed below? GV: Yes. Gregg ------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/ <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 06:23:38 UTC