RE: local copies of WAI logo

As the one who was concerned about change control, I can live with that, as
long as 1) the logo clearly states WCAG 1.0 (which I think it does), and  2)
when we put up conformance logos for WCAG 2.0, they say WCAG 2.0 and are at
a different URL than the WCAG 1.0 logos.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:11 AM
To: Leonard R. Kasday
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: local copies of WAI logo


At 07:22 AM 12/20/2000 , Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>I realize I'm using list bandwidth for what may seem to be a micro-issue,
but there's at least one company that's genuinely concerned that they do it
right, and they want to see permission to copy the logo it in e-writing, not
just hear my opinion (or anyone's personal opinion for that matter).   We
don't want discourage any other companies from using the logo just because
they don't want to reference images on another server, especially companies
as careful as this one.
>
>So, my corrected proposal is that we follow the example of the w3c
validator and  
>we issue an erratum that allows people to use local copies of the
compliance logos. 
>Do most people agree and can the others live with that?  
>
>(I'll also happily accept a bilateral dictatorial decision from the chairs
<grin/> )

I not only "can live with that", but I couldn't live with the alternative!
I think it's clearly an omission and there are a number of excellent
reasons for doing what you suggest, Len.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 14:05:35 UTC