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

Re: WCAG conformance profiles (claims vs. certificates)

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:53:18 +0100
Message-ID: <01a601c28e49$11c9a660$5ffefea9@NBRSIWA>
To: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>;
<jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Cc: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: WCAG conformance profiles (claims vs. certificates)


[cut]
> You are assuming that W3C is certifying the claims, when you say "the real
> claim."  The way one encodes the substance of the claim (EARL) is
> independent of who says it is true, and how one says that they really say
it
> is true (XMLDSIG).
>
> We should separate certification issues from representation language
issues.
>
> Yes, if the W3C has signed a copy of the conformance report either as
'seen' or
> as 'corroborated' that signature will serve as a sufficient key to
retrieve the
> report if you query the W3C authority as to "What was in the document that
you
> signed thus: (publicKey, digiSig)?"  Assuming that W3C has agreed to serve
> as such a repository.
>
> But this would be done using standard signature techniques which leave us
free
> to use what language we wish for the expression of the claims being
signed.

Ok

> And the architecture of the Semantic Web is such that one doesn't need a
> central authority compiling a registry.  The entire URI namespace is the
> index space of Web storage, and the claim as seen and signed (by whoever,
no
> matter who) can be served from anywhere and the signatures will confirm
the
> authority of the assertions with high confidence.
>
> The issue as to whether or not W3C would take on the role of a certifying
> authority is a matter that I should perhaps defer to the Director of the
> International Program Office (Judy).  However, the WCAG group can and
should
> create the expressive language so as to be completely independent from any
> certification process assumptions.

Sure... this is no competence of WCAG Group but i have explain this for
focus attention to the possibility (that is done a lot around the web also
for other W3C validation and claims) that some web developer uses claim
logos without having the full conformance for this logo usage. At this
point, we (as W3C - i spoke also as AC Rep. for IWA/HWG) need to define some
procedures for let users to have the trust of logo usage.

> EARL (check me here, Wendy) has been designed to be usable in the absence
of
> any certification process and pre-existing trust relationship with an
audit
> and certification activity.  It links the claims with a description of the
> actual conformance checks performed so that a third party receiving the
> claim can readily confirm or deny the claims for themselves.

Sure but the problem is: is people able to understand claims? I see for
experience that people consider a valid HTML, XHTML, CSS, WCAG 1.0 A, AA,
AAA valid web sites if they see the logo put in the website...
This IMHO,

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 09:53:27 GMT

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