Re: working on the definitions for support personliazion

> Lisa / COGA TF came forward with a list of 75 (now apparently whittled down to 35 (?) - apologies as I am off-site this week) of key controls and inputs that would be applicable in this SC.

I think the HTML list Lisa was comparing against was just for form inputs, so that doesn’t cover the nav or button controls that are also in the definition.

> I do however agree that posting the list of those key controls/inputs MUST be included in the SC as a normative part of the SC, so that we have a 'list' to measure success/failure against.

Sorry for misquoting, but that is the bit I was getting at.

Would it be ok to have that as name/value pairs?
E.g. Prefix or title (‘honorific-prefix’).

Where the ‘name’ is what’s in the current definition, and the token in brackets is copied in from the HTML spec when possible, or created for this purpose for the others.

Cheers,

-Alastair