- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:50:33 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 19:22 11/01/2006, Michael Cooper wrote: <blockquote> In the Team C teleconference this week, the question came up about whether session timeouts are included in 2.2.1 (Level 1), which is about notification of impending timeouts. A comment in the intent section of 2.2.1 <http://tinyurl.com/838n9> says that the SC currently does not cover that, but notes that some think it should. With that context, it appears that the only place session timeouts are covered is in 2.2.6 <http://tinyurl.com/72wdt> (Level 3). </blockquote> When I did an issue summary for GL 2.2 in May/June last year [1], I saw that the phrase "that is a function of the content" was added to this SC to clarify that server timeouts are exluded. This was a result of issue 800 [2]. The rationale was that, in general, server administrators, not content authors, control server timeouts. I believe another reviewer said that it is better to cover timeouts generally, regardless if they are a result of the delivered content or are caused by the server (but I can't remember the Bugzilla issue). <blockquote> The question to the group is: Should session timeouts only be covered in 2.2.6? If so, we should add some clarification. OR Should session timeouts be covered in 2.2.1? If so, we will have to modify the SC. The default action, if a lively discussion does not ensue, will be to take the first option and keep the status quo. </blockquote> If reviewers have provided no new evidence in favour of one of these two options, the SC is not likely to change. Regards, Christophe [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/att-0753/WCAG_GL2.2_IssueSummary.20050602.htm [2] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=800 -- 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/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 18:50:30 UTC