- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:44:56 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Davic MacDonald wrote: <blockquote> <Gregg’s_propsal> >>>NOTE 4: Some examples of entities that may set baselines that an author may have to follow include the author, a company, a customer and government entities. </Gregg’s_propsal> I don’t think the author should be included as an entity that the author may have to follow. I would break this out to a separate sentence. I don’t think the second occurrence of “entities” is necessary. So, I would say: <amended_proposal> >>NOTE 4: Some examples of entities that may set baselines that an author may have to follow include a company, a customer and government. In some situations the author may set the baseline. </amended_proposal> </blockquote> At 16:35 22/02/2006, Gregg Vanderheiden responded: <blockquote> (...)But the author is in fact one person who may (have to) set a baseline. They would then have to go by it when creating pages. If no one else sets one, they can't conform without setting one – could they? </blockquote> I agree. If no baseline is set by a government, company or customer, the developer has to define it. He has to turn the baseline implied by his choice of technologies into an explicit statement. I also think that note 4 can drop the word "some" (implied by "include") and the second "may" (following the baseline is not meant to be optional). So it would become: <proposal> Note 4: Examples of entities that may set baselines that an author has to follow include the author, a company, a customer and government entities. </proposal> Regards, Christophe Strobbe -- 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, 22 February 2006 15:45:06 UTC