- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:12:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I think I am just slightly keener on people recognising that they need to use map than you are... Cheers Charles McCN On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Al Gilman wrote: At 12:18 AM 2000-07-19 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >My thoughts and recollections, vague as they may be > >No, I think GL is correct - it is to identify for user agents (ie through >markup such as map). We have asked for both handling of map, and the more >general structural navigation you speak of. > I am quite likely alone in my particularly pharisaical interpretation of what was agreed to in the joint meeting as regards "use MAP for related groups of links." The clause "when you need to add a grouping element" was probably a loophole that I was perceiving and quite possibly nobody else. I did bad things for the WAI interest in a similar way when the namespaces Rec went by and I placed a stricter interpretation (less constraining) on what it said than the proponents understood. Their interpretation was what they promoted in public as for example on xml-dev and that leaves us with the conflicts exposed on xml-uri. I should have dealt with what they thought the language meant, and protested more strongly at the time. As you can tell from my message to the CG, I think that the best way to seek a good agreement that we can stick with into the future is to take Wendy's hint and view this as "in the light of what has transpired in UA since, it is worth revisiting this question." Hope this works for people. Al -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Thursday, 20 July 2000 16:12:28 UTC