Re: Approving the Editors' Draft for publishing [was]Re: Meeting: User Agent Teleconference for 18 November 2010

I also agreed that the summary is a different animal than the rationale. 
  Perhaps the summary belongs only in the Implementation document, since 
that is our non-normative explanatory document.

Please note that I did add the sentence Greg suggested from ATAG stating 
that the success criteria and notes were normative, so that the 
summaries would not be considered normative.



On 11/29/2010 8:08 PM, Greg Lowney wrote:
> Regarding the Summaries paragraphs...
>
> Jan and Mark, the Rationale paragraphs that ATAG2 uses for guidelines
> seem equivalent to the Intent paragraphs that UAAG2's Implementing
> document uses for success criteria; are you suggesting something like
> the latter should be copied into our main document?
>
> Both the Rationale and Intent paragraphs seem very different from the
> Summary paragraphs, whose goal is not to explain why a /guideline/ was
> included, but rather to provide a concise, non-technical description of
> its /success criteria/ and how they fit together. The original
> introduction is at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0007.html.

Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 13:47:49 UTC