Re: Definition "content" :PLEASE DEFINE

Just to note another short thread on the same topic didn't arrive at a
result: (it came
from a confused user. I think the topic is worth trying to pursue).


On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

  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


  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

Charles McCathieNevile  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 11:55:56 UTC