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

methods for conformance claims Re: Consensus Items

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:32:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110191427400.27106-100000@tux.w3.org>
I do not think we should require of all claims that they be in a detailed
machine readable format. This will be a pain for people who know how to do an
assessment and regularly do them to a simple level.

I would support requiring a machine readable for of a claim at a given
conformance level, since this is small enough to be done easily (and we can
provide cut-and-paste stuff based on form-filling already).

I still support some form of conformance claim that can be written by a
person, and includes some reasonably good identification method such as
inclusion of a known image file linked to a known URI.

I think we should strongly support machine-readable, detailed claims.


On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
  3.	There was a consensus that:  "It seems like a good idea to
  express conformance claims in machine-readable form, but we aren't sure
  if we should require it of all claims or suggest it be used."

[3 paragraphs of comment on the above snipped]
  The above three numbered paragraphs (only) are hereby posted to the list
  for comment.
[the rest snipped]
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 14:32:49 UTC

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