W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: CONSENSUS REVISED 9-20-01

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:30:10 +1000
Message-ID: <15275.2210.750973.472206@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Al Gilman writes:
 > So far this list only talks about 'normative' as though what we say is either
 > 'normative' or 'not normative.'
 > 
 > In the IETF they have found it helpful to have three grades of things that
 > they
 > find to say.
 > 
 > These can be summarized by the graded series [MUST, SHOULD, MAY].  There are
 > other keywords but they equate to these three in terms of their effect on
 > 'normativity.'

How would this tripartite division of the normativity continuum (from
"must", i.e., normative, at one end, to "may", i.e., non-normative, at
the other) be reflected in the guidelines? Would it be used in the
checkpoints themselves, in the success criteria, or elsewhere? How
would it interact with the priority scheme? Note that in WCAG 1.0,
checkpoints at all three priority levels are normative; the
differences between them are based entirely on "impact"--that is, the
effect of implementing or not implementing the checkpoint upon the
accessibility of the content to identifiable groups of users.

Thus, on the one hand we have a distinction between normative,
recommended/advisory and non-normative assertions, and on the other a
distinction between differing priority levels. If both distinctions
were to be relied upon in the document, how would you implement them
and avoid potential confusion?

In essence I am looking for a concrete proposal that the working group
can discuss.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 05:30:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:14 GMT