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

Re: WCAG conformance profiles

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:58:45 +1100
Message-ID: <15831.26709.186301.555473@jdc.local>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Cc: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG writes:
 > 
 > I think we could use these that was discussed years ago:
 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999AprJun/0161.html
 > 
 > Using:
 > 
 > ((PICS-version 1.1)

Two comments:

1. This has been superseded by RDF/EARL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/

2. The proposed PICS ratings for levels 1+ and 2+ don't specify which
   checkpoints have been met beyond level 1 in the first case and
   beyond level 2 in the second. Thus they don't constitute a
   complete or accurate conformance claim, because someone reading
   this claim wouldn't know which checkpoints were involved. That is
   why I specified in my proposal that at levels 1+ and 2+ the
   relevant checkpoints have to be identified in the profile.

I think this same concern also underlies Ian's objections to the
wording of the conformance section of the current draft. Due to an
editorial oversight, it wasn't made clear that unless one is claiming
conformance at one of the three levels, the additional checkpoints
implemented at a higher level have to be listed.

I think text and EARL should be the preferred methods of making
claims.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 04:59:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT