- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:22:04 +0100
- To: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>
Hi Ian, I have forwarded your responses to the i18n group comments to the i18n group for review. Thankyou. I wanted to come back on the following: > > #ri-1: > > Sec 2, 1st bulleted list > > It would be useful to clarify the intent and normative status of > the bold text that immediately follows a guideline title. > > See the beginning of section 2, which gives a succinct > explanation of the normative and informative parts of each > checkpoint definition. > > "Each checkpoint definition includes the following parts. Some parts > are normative (i.e., relate to conformance); others are informative > only. ..." I was actually referring to the text related to guidelines, not checkpoints. The first bulleted list in ch2 mentions the guideline number and guideline title (which I assume are both inside the box), but then goes on to the rationale without mentioning the intervening bold text (eg. From Guideline 1: "Ensure that the user can interact with the user agent (and the content it renders) through different input and output devices.") It is this bold text I am querying. Cheers, RI ============ Richard Ishida W3C The W3C Internationalization Activity has restructured, and has issued a call for participation. See http://www.w3.org/International/about.html tel: +44 1753 480 292 http://www.w3.org/International/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] > Sent: 24 September 2002 23:39 > To: ishida@w3.org > Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > Subject: Re: UAAG review comments (personal) > > > Richard Ishida wrote: > > Please find enclosed some personal last call comments on the User > Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 > > Version reviewed was 21 August 2002 > > I18n WG comments will follow. > > Hi Richard, > > Thank you for your comments. I'm only sending a quick > reply here since I'm on the road. > > - Ian > > > #ri-1: > > Sec 2, 1st bulleted list > > It would be useful to clarify the intent and normative status of > the bold text that immediately follows a guideline title. > > See the beginning of section 2, which gives a succinct > explanation of the normative and informative parts of each > checkpoint definition. > > "Each checkpoint definition includes the following parts. Some parts > are normative (i.e., relate to conformance); others are informative > only. ..." > > > > #ri-2: > > Checkpoint 1.1, checkpoint provisions for this and all following > checkpoints Consider naming the checkpoint provisions 1.1.1 or 1.1.a > and so on, so they can be easily referred to directly. > > We refer to them as checkpoint 1.1, provision 1 but I see no > harm in also people referring to them as "provision 1.1.1". > The anchors are already in place to link to these provisions > (and checkpoints, and guidelines), but the anchors are names, > not numbers, to survive edits across document versions. > > > #ri-3: > > Checkpoint 1.1, last para > > Shouldn't this para have some more formal status (perhaps within > normative inclusions and exclusions)? > > The UAWG left this as a "should" as the WG was unable to > "draw the line" about what needed to be available through > each input mode. > > > #ri-4: > > Checkpoint 2.2, Sufficient technique 1 > > Suggest: 'text format, not just implemented" -> "text format, in > addition to implemented" > > Or: "Text formats beyond those implemented." > > > By the way, note that the numbering in the document is a little > confusing. Eg. there appear at first glance to be two sections > labelled 1.1. > > That's in part a historical artifact. I propose to leave > the numbering as is, but include a Note saying "Heads-up: > the numbering works this way: > a) Chapter 2 has no subsections, only guidelines, checkpoints > and provisions. > b) Checkpoint 1.1 is discussed in Guideline two; that's different > from "section 1.1". > > -- > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > Tel: +1 718 260-9447 >
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 08:25:29 UTC