- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:25:25 -0500
- To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
- CC: "UA List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote: > > We may need to think about what we mean when we say that one checkpoint is > an "important special case" of another checkpoint. > > I have identified one case in which a P3 checkpoint (checkpoint 9.6) is said > to be an "important special case" of a P2 checkpoint (checkpoint 9.3). > > This seems illogical, since I would think that an important special case of > a P2 checkpoint would be either P2 or P1. > > I did not find other cases of "important special case" that have this > possible contradiction. I don't think this is a contradiction. I think that "important special case" means that a concept deserves its own checkpoint, but I don't think that it's related to priorities. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 16:27:27 UTC