Re: FW: conformance attached

Gregg and all,
it was a pleasure having the opportunity to meet some of you in 
Venice - let me once again apologize for my late arrival and early 
departure ... being there for just a few hours might have been 
perceived more as a nuisance to the rest of the group rather than a 
positive contribution, but for me it has been very important in order 
to understand how the group works and to find out how to better 
contribute to it.

>Attached as a  Word Doc, and pasted below,  are some thoughts 
>regarding an enhance conformance scheme for us to discuss and 
>possibly build on.

In general I like the scheme proposed. I am not sure if this was 
discussed at the latest CC (the minutes are not available), so please 
excuse me if I am repeating a point that was already made.

What I like less is using numbers to identify every extended 
checkpoint by a number, as I think this might lead to some 
misunderstanding, where conformance to 1 might be perceived as more 
or less important than E-8.

Would it be feaseble to use a single letter or a group of 2/3 letters 
for each ?

Instead of

>
>           WCAG 2.0 Core-Level 2, E-1+, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+, 9+

We'd have

>           WCAG 2.0+      B/B, RUN, ACC


Just my two cents ....
FF