RE: RE: working definition of baseline

Good point Michael,

But i think that it should also not be constrained to 'claims'.  Baselines
are good for evaluation even when you don't make a claim.

So - how do we write it without evaluation or claim.

Or maybe we just say  "evaluation or claim"  since it could be either.  (or
neither?)  


 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Michael Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:49 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; Jason White; Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: RE: working definition of baseline


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