- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:13:24 -0400
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: (wrong string) érrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@teleline.es>
At 04:18 PM 2001-08-03 , Ian B. Jacobs wrote: >Al Gilman wrote: >> >[snip] >> >> Note: What we want is stricter than anything one can define simply as 'text.' >> This is the bug in the circular proposal [text is what is trimodal accessible] >> for a UAAG definition. That is why I have introduced separate definitions for >> text and accessible text. [disclaimer: None of this is to suggest any pre-CR change in the UAAG glossary.] > >I'm not sure I see the circularity of the UAAG defintions of text and >text element. Can you explain? > I said what I said too tersely. I did not mean to say the current UAAG definitions are circular. I meant an earlier proposal [which I tried to expand inline for clarity] for what the UAAG definitions might be, that has been superceded by the current language. There is a bit of under-definition or circularity in the "presumed to produce" clause. The way it is stated it is not clear that it is meant as a substantive restriction over and above what has been said up to that point. It's not critical to the document IMHO, but this question should be reviewed at the latest in time for WCAG 2. Hopefully before that time we can come up with a development that works for content, user agent, and authoring guidelines all around; and save our readers keeping one finger in the glossary as they read. Al
Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 17:58:53 UTC