- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 20:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
- cc: WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Sorry, I was trying to explain why there was no clearl conseensus one way or the other. I thought Al had summmed up neatly one side of the argument, and wanted to present a skeleton of the other. I am sorry to have been dense. (Fail WCAG 14.1 - write clearly and simply. Do not pass go...) Chaals On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Rick Jelliffe wrote: > >Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> wrote > >>> * "no clear cut." > >> CMN But that isn't a position the group has agreed on. A thumbs-up character >> or a smiley face is readable to a lot more people than using a non-zero >> integer or the keyword "true", although it does present problems that require >> resolution. But the argument is that absolute restrictions on names in XML >> 1.1 will not be the best outcome for accessibility. > >I am confused (not uncommon!) Al's summary says "The discussion was inconclusive" >and gives a lot of reasons where unrestricted characters can cause problems, but >Charles is saying the opposite, that there was a conclusive decision reached that >unrestricted characters are positively good. > >Sorry to be dense, >Rick Jelliffe > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2002 20:29:30 UTC