- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:52:44 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- cc: W3c-Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Phill Jenkins wrote: > >But it should do as AccessValet does, and offer the user the ability > >to mark the guideline as satisfied or (as in the case of summary for > >a layout table) Not Applicable. That is, of course, after issuing the > >warning. > > How does AccessValet know the next time it is checking the site that the > table is "Not applicable"? Why is it re-checking the site? If a page hasn't changed since the last report, then we assume that any existing record is still valid - unless of course you want to re-check from scratch. If the page has changed, then I'm afraid it doesn't have a smart way of telling whether the change affects the need (or otherwise) for a summary attribute. > Does/could it leave some keyword in the > Summary attribute, such as "Layout"? No. It's a reporting tool, not a repair tool. Its very limited repair capabilities don't run to inserting missing attributes. -- Nick Kew
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 15:52:49 UTC