W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

Agenda items for July 20, 2004 telecon

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:52:59 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000030326641@spamarrest.com>

Hi everyone. 

Time: 20:00 UTC
(4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 8 AM Friday Eastern Australia)
Number:  +1-617-761-6200, passcode 9224 irc.w3.org 6665, channel #wai-wcag

Our agenda items are below.
PLEASE READ and think about these items in advance so we can knock em off. 

Our focus for this week is 'whatever we need before next public release"

Item 0: Confirmation of our decisions at the F2F

From Johns Post  (there have been some posts after John post on this which
should be read as well)

1. Any conformance with WCAG 2.0 requires that all Level 1 success criteria
for all guidelines be met.

2. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level A means that all Level 1 success criteria
for all guidelines are met. 

3. WCAG 2.0 conformance at Level AA means that all Level 1 and all Level 2
success criteria for all guidelines are met

4. WCAG 2.0 conformance at Level AAA means that all Level 1, Level2, and
Level 3 success criteria for all guidelines are met

Conformance claims
1. All conformance claims must include at least the following information: 

a. The version of the guidelines to which the conformance claim is made.

b. The URI of the authored unit for which the claim is being made.

(Editor's note: the phrase "authored unit" should be linked to a glossary
definition based on the definition of this term in the Device Independence
Working Group's Glossary of Terms at http://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/) .

c. The level of conformance being claimed. 

2. The conformance level for an authored unit that contains other authored
units is equal to the lowest conformance level claimed for the authored unit
and any of the units it contains.

Editor's Note #1: A question has been raised as to whether the information
required in items 1(a)-1(c) above should all be transmitted in the HTTP
header or in some other way.

Editor's Note #2: We are currently looking at how to handle unknown or
community-contributed, authored units that are created using an aggregator
supplied tool. If the aggregator-supplied tool conforms to

ATAG, can ATAG conformance be used to imply that the aggregated content
conforms to WCAG?



Item 1: 
Issue #322 - Requirement for full text script of all movies?
Goal: Incorporate a resolution to this issue into the revisions from the
June 24, 2004 telecon. 
Latest Proposal: 
Issue Description:

Item 2:
Proposed wording on Conformance and Conformance Claims
Goal: review list discussion and determine whether issues remain or
additional clarifications are needed for the next draft.
List discussion:

Item 3:
Issue #832 Clear link text, etc. 
Goal: Decide whether the proposal resulting from the July 1, 2004 telecon
should be included in the next draft. If yes, at which level? 
Proposal and list discussion:

Item 4:
Linking to techniques from guidelines
Goal: For our next public draft, we'd like to begin linking to the
techniques drafts. A proposal for how this could be done is available
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option5> and we'd
like to settle on an approach for including these links as the gateway and
supporting techniques drafts become available. 
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 18:53:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC