W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: New draft with details

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:12:48 -0600
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256841.00646AF6.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>



>From the Conformance section (note that the piece on applicability in the
2 december >draft was removed)
>
>  Note. Some example conformance evaluations are available. It should be
>  noted that conformance claims are not necessarily validated or endorsed
by
>  W3C.

I believe we should keep my proposed [different from the 2 Dec draft] in
the guidelines to improve understanding on the applicability in the
conformance section:

<PJ proposal>:
Note. Some "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guideline" checkpoints may not
apply to certain classes of authoring tools.  The scope of the tool's
design
dictates whether the requirements of a checkpoint are applicable. [A]
Some checkpoints require a tool to implement applicable functionality in
order
for the tool to claims conformance with the checkpoint.  [Sample
conformance
evaluations] are provide as example only, and are not necessarily validated
 or
endorsed by W3C.

[sample conformance evaluations] would link to ?

As I read the paragraph again, a "for example" might need to be added, such
as:

[A] For example, [checking for and alerting the author] about [providing
information about the general layout of a site (e.g., a site map or table
of contents)] would not be in the scope of all authoring tools.


Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 13:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:43 UTC