W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: RE: working definition of baseline

From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:48:34 -0400
Message-ID: <A0666B3C59F1634290FDC88674D87C3202124E7A@1WFEMAIL.ottawa.watchfire.com>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi - with all the proposals and comments zipping back and forth I may have failed to notice this before, but I noticed it now so I'll pick it up.

For a definition of baseline, Jason proposed and Gregg modified:

> <Gregg and Jason propose>
> Any minimum set of technologies assumed to be supported and 
> enabled in user
> agents for the purpose of evaluating conformance of web 
> content to these
> guidelines.
> </Gregg and Jason propose>

The word that's sticking for me is "evaluating". I think WCAG should be agnostic to evaluation. It is possible for content to be WCAG conformant without being evaluated for conformance - evaluation is necessary for us to know it is WCAG conformant but is not an intrinsic part of the conformance itself.

I suggest we avoid that word and come up with a proposal like:

<Michael proposal>
Any minimum set of technologies assumed to be supported and enabled in user agents for the claim of conformance to these guidelines to be true.
</Michael proposal>

In addition to removing the evaluation language I wordsmithed out the gerund, an editorial practice I've taken on when I write to an international audience.

Michael
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2005 16:48:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC