- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:08 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
- Cc: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, Bert@w3.org
Thank you all who replied.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jul/thread.html#9
Point 1 (how much information is included in the defining discussion):
While I may not *like it* [I may disagree] when Lynn says "that's not
the meaning of the word," I am sure I can *lump it* [I can live with
it] if the glossary entry, while not containing the "when to use it"
and "what to do about it" clauses, is clearly linked to them in the
overall package.
The WCAG WG has been toying with the idea of an interactive slicer
that would extract views collecting related materials across
guidelines/techniques/testSuites. This issue raises the spectre of
such a query-response system to collect the critical appearances of
'deprecated' across all the modal documents.
Point 2 ('deprecated' means 'no longer recommended'):
<quote cite=
"http://www.w3.org/mid/D17B59C5-D451-11D8-8462-000A95718F82@w3.org">
Deprecated features are no longer recommended for use ...
</quote>
This is a point that I will take back to our issue with CSS WG over
saying that the 'aural' media type indication is deprecated by CSS
2.1.
At the very least, if CSS WG publicly tell our customers in a CSS 2.1
Recommendation that the media type indication 'aural' is deprecated,
and privately tell PF WG that "but this doesn't mean it's not
recommended," then the QA WG might take issue with this pattern of
utterances.
Al
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 17:14:46 UTC