- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:56:09 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
fyi - response from Charles.. >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:53:45 -0500 (EST) >From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> >To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov> >Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org >X-Original-To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org >Subject: Re: Fwd: Review of ATAG 1 last call against SpecGL last call >X-Archived-At: >http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.55.0501110550080.13554@homer.w3.org >Resent-From: w3c-wai-au@w3.org >X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org> archive/latest/4004 >X-Loop: w3c-wai-au@w3.org >Sender: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org >Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org >List-Id: <w3c-wai-au.w3.org> >List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe> >Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:53:46 +0000 >X-MailScanner: >X-MailScanner-From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org > > >OK, might as well take this as official notification that the thing exists >then. If I receive further comments I will pass them on. > >Tim, if you have any different conclusions to mine I would be glad if you >cc'ed me or the qa list - you probably have a better understanding of specGL >than I do. Which means the differences are interesting in terms of how an >outsider understands specGL. > >And just by the by, the MUTAT tool, which is designed to allow people to run >this kind of test and produce an EARL result which could be transformed into >something like the HTML tale, or queried as part of a larger collection of >RDF, is under repair by me. One of the test cases I am working on is SpecGL, >but I could also do an ATAG-based version if you think this would be helpful. > >Cheers > >Chaals > >On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Tim Boland wrote: > > > > >fyi - I also started on such an evaluation on ATAG 2 LC but did not finish > >it yet.. > > > >>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:36:55 -0500 (EST) > >>From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> > >>To: www-qa@w3.org > >> > >>Hi folks, > >> > >>I have looked at the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines last call > >>document, and done a review of how well it meets the last call draft of > >>SpecGL. The summary is that they conform to all but one requirement, and > >>noted in the draft that they expected to conform to this final > requirement by > >>the time the last call draft was published. They also implement many of the > >>good practices. > >> > >>I will be sending the review to the group tomorrow because it is late > >>already, but if anyone has time to look over it and wants to comment > quickly > >>it is at http://www.w3.org/2005/01/cmn-atag-review
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 13:56:19 UTC