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

Non-testable, normative requirements (was RE: tone as a guildeline?)

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:20:34 +1100
Message-ID: <15381.49618.672408.198626@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > 
 > As to being normative but not checkpoints. I'm not sure what that
 > means. It is an interesting thought. At first it seemed like
 > everything normative needed to be checkable -- but thinking further
 > it would seem that only those things required for conformance would
 > need to be testable checkpoints. Maybe we can have normative
 > suggestions that are not required.

In doing this we would (de facto) be > defining a "core" of testable
requirements plus a set of additional > requirements to which entities
could claim conformance, but for > which adequate testing could not be
carried out. In the latter case > we would be essentially treating the
author's declaration as final > (a third party couldn't conduct some
tests and show that the > author's conformance claim was correct, or
indeed erroneous).

I am not objecting to the idea at all, merely pointing out its
implications. If we want those consequences then we can go ahead.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 03:20:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:17 GMT