W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Conformance Level

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:18:46 -0700
Message-ID: <001601bec70a$7104e860$64520518@alex1.va.home.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
okay, i need to be careful when i say "required"

but still think we are confusing people outside the communtiy who must
implement this and come up to speed <smile>

----- Original Message -----
From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
To: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Conformance Level


> RN:: "...eliminating...Prioritites!"
>
> WL: I guess that for everything except U.S. Federally funded sites this
> makes a lot of sense.  "Conformance" in the sense of Section 508 and
> whether purchase of only accessible goods and services is permissible
> probably must have some criterion.  *RECOMMENDED* guidelines should be
> just that recommended.  Priority and Conformance seem to be related to
> *REQUIRED* more than *recommended*. The notion that W3C can require
> anything is only germane when their recommendations have been given
> official primateur as in Access Board Regulations - beyond our purview.
>
> --
> Love.
>             ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
> http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Monday, 5 July 1999 10:23:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT