- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:42:57 -0400
- To: wendy@w3.org
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Dear Wendy, Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004 After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will be considered as if you had accepted the comment. Original Comment (Issue 1083 [1]): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has accepted your comment. The QA Working Group acknowledges that the WCAG1.0 and WCAG2.0 documents are very different in style, and that mapping between WCAG1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG2.0 in such a way that would allow such Checkpoints to be marked as decprecated in WCAG2.0 would be indirect and difficult. However, the QA Working Group believes that the creation of such a mapping is important, because specification users need to know the evolution of particular features from WCAG1.0 to WCAG2.0. The QA Working Group suggests that an appendix be created in WCAG2.0 with the mapping desired by the QA Working Group (indicated previously), showing and explaining the evolution of particular features from WCAG1.0 to WCAG2.0; in such an appendix, the QA Working Group suggests to use whatever format is most appropriate in meeting the objectives of the appendix. The QA Working Group believes that such an approach mentioned previously would be consistent with 2.4.4 Deprecation in the revised SpecGL draft [2]. [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ [1]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1083 [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#deprecation -- Karl Dubost QA Working Group Chair http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 18:43:01 UTC