- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 2000年4月24日 15:10:27 -0400
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- CC: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <39049C23.B4BBD286@w3.org>
Al Gilman wrote: > >Cynthia, > > > >Section 3 says that for each checkpoint there are: > > > > "Optional informative notes, clarifying examples, > > and cross references to related guidelines or checkpoints. " > > > >The "informative" is supposed to distribute to the whole sentence. > > > > Yeah, but out here amung us good ol' boys, it don't. So this sentence > doesn't get the point across for an important segment of our intended > audience. > > Usage: 'optional' is what you tell the guidelines author, not the > guidelines reader, about the material that may or may not be there in the > document in addition to the core guideline. It is confusing here. Better > to use 'may' in describing the on-again, off-again presence of the > elaborations. The term 'optional' in the guidelines should be reserved to > substructures or propositions which may or may not be present or true at > the _content provider's option_. > > Besides, the cross references are a mixed bag of normative and > non-normative references. So if the 'informative' is supposed to be > interpreted with an ISO geek hat on, then the quote as presently stated is > broken. Yes, I agree. I think this needs to be fixed in all three Guidelines. - Ian > 'illustrative' examples is the best plain English I know for what is > intended here. That is, best on a balanced evaluation both for actually > meaning what is intended and meaning that to the broadest readership. > > Al > > > - Ian > > > >-- > >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > >Tel: +1 831 457-2842 > >Cell: +1 917 450-8783 > > -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 24 April 2000 15:10:52 UTC