- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:14:24 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- cc: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>, 3WC WAI X-TECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "Wendy A. Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
Right. If we have 4 clear definitions, including one term that exactly
matches the needs of UAAG which will not be confused with what WCAG means,
then I think we will be doing better than if we do have the same term used
differently in different specs. This is particularly true for ATAG, which
effectively requires its audience to read both WCAG and UAAG.
There is a discussion on IG about background images and whether they are
covered by WCAG checkpoint 1.1 because they are content - my hope is that
this sort of discussion can be avoided in future by better defining
the different meanings.
In this case, the proposed term "document content" would be what UAAG means,
whereas "information provided by the document" would be what WCAG most often
means.
Chaals
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
Just a reminder: UAAG 1.0 doesn't use "content" to mean
"information". It means the document object. I've mentioned
this previously and Al pointed out that it's ok to have
several definitions in different documents. For UAAG 1.0,
content includes everything in the document object.
- Ian
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 09:14:25 UTC