W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: WCAG conformance profiles

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:59:30 +0100
Message-ID: <00cc01c28e17$a4fd2240$5ffefea9@NBRSIWA>
To: <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:58 AM
Subject: WCAG conformance profiles

> I propose that WCAG 2.0 introduce the notion of a conformance profile,
> as defined below. In practice this would involve only a minor
> adjustment to the conformance scheme as specified in the latest
> working draft.


> A conformance profile specifies the level at which conformance is
> claimed (1, 1+, 2, 2+ or 3). In the case of level 1+ or level 2+, the
> conformance profile must also include a list of checkpoints (beyond
> level 1 or level 2, respectively) to which conformance is claimed at a
> higher level. A conformance profile may be provided either in text or
> as metadata.

I think we could use these that was discussed years ago:


((PICS-version 1.1)
 (rating-system "http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag20-conformance")
 (rating-service "http://www.w3.org/WAI")
 (icon "wcag1A")
 (name "W3C WCAG 1.0 Conformance level")
 (description "The W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
               Conformance level Rating System. Claim are not verified
               by W3C. Content providers are solely responsible for
               the use of these logos. ")

 (category  (transmit-as "c") (name "WCAG Conformance level")
  (label  (name "Level 1") (value 0)
          (description "All Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied") )
  (label  (name "Level 1+") (value 1)
          (description "All Priority 1 and some Priority 2 checkpoints are
satisfied") )
  (label  (name "Level 2") (value 2)
          (description "All Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are satisfied") )
  (label  (name "Level 2+") (value 3)
          (description "All Priority 1, 2, and some Priority 3 checkpoints
are satisfied")
  (label  (name "Level 3") (value 4)
          (description "All Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are satisfied")

This content must be put in the file:

Then, as in the old message, the usage in the pages will be the follow:

<meta http-equiv="pics-Label"
      content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.w3.org/wai/wcag20-conformance" labels
        exp "2002.12.31"  for "http://www.foo.com/foo.html"  by
        ratings (c 1))' />

So, as for other pics services, is possible also to archive the declaration
of conformity. This is also important because i think there is a need of a
service that could be contacted if some DOC ("Declaration of Conformity")
are considered not correct (this for assure the web developer to have not
wrong "examples" of accessibility level reached).

> A conformance claim must include a conformance profile, either
> directly or via a link. The possibility of linking to a conformance
> profile offers the flexibility inherent in this proposal that
> conformance profiles can be specified separately from the conformance
> claims that refer to them, for example by policy setters. This should
> also simplify the author's task by allowing a link to be used in place
> of a complex (inline) conformance profile.
> The term "conformance profile" may, but need not, itself be used in
> the guidelines, as long as the substance of the proposal remains
> clear.

"Conformance profile" is good.

Roberto Scano
IWA/HWG EMEA Coordinator
W3C Advisory Committee Representative for IWA/HWG
International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild
http://www.iwanet.org - http://www.hwg.org
E-Mail: emea@iwanet.org - w3c-rep@iwanet.org
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 03:59:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC