Edit comment LC-960 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1657 Next: LC-803

Comment LC-960: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
The 'if' clauses don't belong in this construction.
I suspect what you had in mind was a cascade of elseIf clauses.

Proposed Change:

Change from OR (a.k.a. one of the following is true) of
* if A1 then B1
* if A2 then B2
* if A3 then B3
* etc.

to
OR of

* A1 and B1
* A2 and B2
* A3 and B3
* etc.; Related issues: 955 958 818
(space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMC] [] This looks like it should be included with the rest of the comments about SC 1.1.1 wording. {not-accept} @@Response to commenter That structure is harder to read and understand, though it may logically parse better. --------------- response as per rewrite of 1.1.1: {accept} Discussed in the 15 March 2007 telecon: Resolution: close 1.1.1 wording issue as proposed Issue 956, Issue 1524, and Issue 885, Issue 955, and Issue 960, Issue 738, Issue 1281, Issue 1282, Issue 1506, Issue 801, Issue 800, Issue 1155 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/03/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html {accept} DONE Modify 1.1.1 based on proposal at <http://tinyurl.com/ysfsks>;; Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0108.html; Resolution: We have rewritten 1.1.1 in response many comments and we think it reads more clearly now.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)