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

Re: Agenda

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:40:17 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
In response to conformance ideas:
I think one of the most interesting things that came out of last week's 
meeting [1] were the axes for possible priority definitions:
       WCAG 1.0 - pure accessibility model
       technical feasibility
       reasonableness or mitigating factors or something

This gets into some of the big elephants and I think these will be what 
drive the priorities and our scheme.

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/10/11-minutes.html

In response to technology-specifics:
A very, very preliminary version of the HTML Techniques is now available at 

It doesn't have a table of contents, the sections aren't numbered, the 
style sheets are a bit funky, there is some data that I'm not yet pulling 
from the xml file, etc.  BUT it is interesting to compare what Matt did for 
HTML techniques compared to what I did for CSS [3].
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20010716/
(Note that I'm announcing this in a thread called "Agenda" since it's not 
really ready for review yet, but I wanted to have it available for people 
during the call so that we can show what Matt came up with for 
HTML-specific tests).

In HTML he has "rules" in CSS I have a chart at the back [4] to provide 
tests for each checkpoint.  PDF techs [5] take a completely different 
approach with "PDF Checkpoints."

In general, I think  all of these point to what Jason talked about in his 
post, i.e. technology-specific success criteria.

[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20010716/#L1732
[5] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG-PDF-TECHS-20010913/


At 08:46 PM 10/17/01 , Jason White wrote:
>Thursday, 18 October, 20:00 UTC (4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 6 AM
>Friday Eastern Australia) on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038
>The agenda items are as follows:
>1. To continue discussing conformance ideas and proposals, notably the
>    question of how the core items without which a conformance claim
>    cannot be made, are to be identified. See last week's meeting
>    minutes at
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0087.html
>2. Technology-specifics: should we be thinking in terms of
>    technology-specific success criteria as comprising a normative
>    component of our deliverables? If so, we need to begin the process
>    of defining such criteria in conjunction with the techniques
>    documents that are currently being drafted in respect of each
>    technology. On the concept of technology-specific success criteria,
>    see
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0092.html
>    and follow-up.
>3. Working group time-line:
>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/10/timeline.html

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 15:35:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC