W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > September 2006

baseline (was RE: TCDL Draft E (second response))

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:24:46 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20060921171415.030dbae0@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: TSDTF <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>

Hi,

In a previous e-mail, I wrote:
<quote>
The problem with defining "baseline" on the level of technologies only
is that it is a simple binary representation that does
not do justice to the reality of incomplete implementations by
user agents. Some websites that put HTML 4.01 in their baseline will
assume that every feature is supported, while others will assume that
object, link, longdesc, etc are not adequately supported by the user
agents of a significant percentage of their visitors. [These are not
the best examples but I hope they clarify my point.] This means that
some websites will use fall-back techniques such as 'embed', while others
will not.
That's why it is possible to say that technology X is in the baseline
of a test case but element Y is not.
</quote>


Shadi asked:
<quote>
Is this definition of a "baseline with exceptions" really inline with WCAG 2.0?
</quote>


Carlos Iglesias responded:
<quote>
I agree in the fact that there are problems with the current definition of 
baseline within WCAG2, as the ERT group discussed [1] and reported [2] in 
the past, but I think it's obvious that we should adopt WCAG2 definition in 
this group. Maybe our further work will provide valuable feedback for the 
WCAG WG on this subject.
</quote>


CS: The WCAG working group is still/again discussing the definition of 
baseline, so I think it's good to have some flexibility in TCDL until this 
issue has been fixed. (If you have any feedback for the WCAG WG on the 
definition of baseline, please send it now.)
I have read the comments at [2]; the first question ("When are technologies 
supported?") sounds like an argument for the exclusion mechanism 
(technology X but not element Y) I proposed.

Best regards,

Christophe


[1] - [http://www.w3.org/2006/05/17-er-minutes#item02]
[2] - [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006May/0066.html]

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 15:25:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:33 GMT