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

Re: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Claims

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 14:40:21 +0200
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20060509141606.02e88be8@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos and Carlos ;-)


At 13:07 9/05/2006, Carlos A Velasco wrote:
<quote>

Carlos Iglesias wrote:
<blockqoute>(...)
Scoping of conformance claims.
Conformance claims can be limited, or "scoped," to apply to only some
parts of a Web site. Scoping by URI to exclude sections of a site is
allowed so that authors can make claims for just some parts of a site.
Example 3 above is a scoped conformance claim.
...
Example 3: On 21 June 2007, http://example.com/nav and
http://example.com/docs conform to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Triple-A.
</blockqoute>
Apparently they are referring to a whole directory just by the base URI
(they talk about parts, not documents or Web units) i.e. applying the
"Directory" Scope concept.

May the force be with them! And what happens when a delivery unit (just 
resisting to use Web unit for the moment) has a CSS like 
http://example.com/css/example.css? It is in scope or not?
</quote>

A stylesheet is not a Web unit but an "authored unit", and when it is 
"intended to be used as a part of another authored unit", it is an 
"authored component" 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html#authored-componentdef).

Conformance claims apply to Web units, not to authored units. So if a Web 
unit within the scope of your conformance claim uses a CSS that is outside 
the scope of your conformance claim, my understanding is that the 
conformance claim applies to the Web unit *with" the CSS (but not to the 
CSS in isolation).
Does that make sense?


Carlos Iglesias wrote:
<quote>
Similary, in the first example:
<blockqoute>
Example 1: On 23 March 2005, http://www.wondercall.example.com conforms
to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Level A.
</blockqoute>
In this case, they are apparently referring to a whole subdomain just
namin the base URI
</quote>

And Carlos Velasco asked:
<quote>
And what about a CGI script in http://www.example.com/cgi? Belongs or not?
</quote>

Do you mean a Web unit in http://www.wondercall.example.com/ that uses a 
CGI at http://www.example.com/cgi?
My view that if you have a form somewhere under 
http://www.wondercall.example.com/ that submits to a CGI at or under 
http://www.example.com/cgi, the response will also belong to 
http://www.example.com/, not to ttp://www.wondercall.example.com/, so for 
example 1 above, the CGI is outside the scope of the claim.

I hope it is really that simple ;-)
(I wonder what the man on the Clapham omnibus would say.)


Carlos:
<quote>
Although I am also interested, I still think conformance claims are 
something for which EARL might be used as support information, but not as 
the claim itself or, like a blanket statement.
</quote>

The current examples of conformance claims are running text, but I don't 
think that is meant is to exclude other, e.g. machine-readable, formats. 
Using EARL (or other RDF-based formats) for conformance claims would reduce 
the readability of these claims for mere mortals.


Carlos Velasco also wrote:
<quote>
In fact, it [Web unit] is a bastard son of a delivery unit.
</quote>


Carlos, I hope you'll get used to the term. It's not so weird if you 
consider that there is also an test framework called jWebUnit 
(http://jwebunit.sourceforge.net/) :-)

Regards,

Christophe


-- 
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 Tuesday, 9 May 2006 12:40:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT