RE: what are w3c technologies?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@sidar.org]
> Sent: 12 May 2004 14:40
> To: WAI Interest Group
> Subject: Re: what are w3c technologies?
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious answer is the list at http://www.w3.org/TR - which even 
> classifies them according to whether they are 
> Recommendations, Working 
> Drafts, etc.

Thanks Chaals <sheepish look />


> Here is some text I am writing for EuroAccessibility's evaluation 
> methodology task for to consider - I'll send a pointer to the 
> archive when 
> I have finished the message and sent it. Note that it is a personal 
> opinion written this morning, and the relevant group at 
> EuroAccessibility 
> hasn't seen it, much less agreed with it. And that is a step before I 
> would suggest it to the WCAG group.
> 
> [[[
> I think we need to provide (and maintain :-( a list of what 
> we consider 
> the relevant technologies. I would start with XHTML 1.0 
> Strict or XHTML 
> 1.1, CSS 1.0 (anticipating a move to 2.1 as soon as it is 
> published as a 
> Recommendation), MathML 2.0, PNG, SMIL 2.0, XML signature / 
> encryption / 
> decryption, XML Schema, XSLT, XSL, VoiceXML 2.0, P3P, ATAG 
> 1.0 (where an 
> application has an authoring component), UAAG 1.0 (where 
> content provides 
> an interface to reading other content, such as foafnaut does) 
> PICS and 
> RDF. In addition we should suggest SVG, EARL, SOAP 1.2, and 
> keep an eye on 
> the implementation status so we upgrade them as appropriate.
> ]]]
> 

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for not including HTML4.01 (or even earlier) and DOM. (Maybe on IRC if not on this list)

Julian

The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2004 10:43:29 UTC