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

Re: Consensus Items

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:27:33 -0700
Message-Id: <a0510030eb7feb1f24689@[]>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 6:19 PM -0500 2001/10/18, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>In the teleconference today, we had a couple things that we reached
>consensus on with regard to conformance.  They are:
>1.	There would be a "minimum standard" of accessibility.  In order
>to assert any level of conformance (with WCAG 2.0) the content must meet
>this minimum standard which consists of a predetermined set of
>2.	There would be one or more sets above the minimum.  (However, no
>decision was made as to whether or not the next level would be "full
>compliance" or whether there would be additional interim sets between
>the minimum and the full.)

The term "Modules" as in "Modularized XHTML" would seem to be useful
here.  This allows us to define subgroups of checkpoints and then
make a statement such as:

      A minimally accessible web site "MUST" follow WCAG 2.0 modules
      A, B, and D.

This allows additional modules to be "added in" to a policy or perhaps
even replaced as appropriate.  Look at the XHTML modules (this is not
a new suggestion) and there's clear models including simple and
complex table modules, as well as required core modules.

One can claim compliance with XHTML Basic -- where XHTML Basic is
simply a specific set of XHTML core and required modules.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 02:58:35 UTC

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