- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:12:05 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Jason suggested that we needed to determine whether XAG would become a guidelines specification on track to being a W3C Recommendation, or merely a document describing good practices. He also suggested that it would be useful to have a document that covered all areas, rather than one for accessibility, another for internationalisation, a third for architectural requirements, etc. I think that there is a need for both (or all three, depending on how you read it). The Technical Architecture Group (TAG) is tasked with providing general information about the architecture of the Web, and I would argue that the architecture needs to take account of the users, not just the technology. I think that the current XAG document should be developed as a W3C Recommendation - a specification that can be tested against, and that is clear enough for developers to successfully use to determine conformance. Clearly that implies that we have editorial work to do, and perhaps there will be structural changes. This is what developing a W3C specification involves. The current draft will provide a marker point for the public, and some history for people who try to replicate the thinking and testing that goes into such a document, as well as meeting the basic W3C process requirement that groups publish work every 3 months to show they are actually doing it. Ian Jacobs, mst recently, has proposed a number of substantive changes to the document which will need to be considered after the publication of the draft, and which are designed to make it clearer how to test conformance. If this document is to receive wide review, then this will happen several times. We hope and I believe that this process makes the document a robust and useful specification. Chaals
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 09:13:23 UTC