- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 11:55:54 -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>
Just to note another short thread on the same topic didn't arrive at a result: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2001Jun/0023 (it came from a confused user. I think the topic is worth trying to pursue). chaals 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 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 -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI 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