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

Re: some additional thoughts on baseline

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:22:15 +1100
Message-ID: <16958.30247.966110.516104@jdc.local>
To: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: WCAG-WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Ben Caldwell writes:
 > [excellent summary omitted]
 > In taking a closer look at this, it seems to me that quite a few of the 
 > issues we were wrestling with when using UAAG as a baseline was first
 > proposed remain and that WCAG still needs to answer the question of when 
 > an author can use a given technology ((X)HTML, CSS, script, XML, SVG,
 > MathML, RDF, Flash, PDF, etc...) to conform to WCAG 2.0 without also 
 > having to provide an equivalent alternative for that content.

Suppose we said, at a minimum, whenever either of the following is
true:

1. There is a UAAG 1.0-conformant user agent with the technology in
   question included in its UAAG conformance profile, or

2. The content implemented in the technology implements repair
   strategies that adequately compensate for the features that at
   least one user agent lacks, and which, were they supported, would
   bring that user agent into conformance with UAAG 1.0.

That's a summary of what I suggested in my proposal last week. The
main question is whether UAAG conformance profiles are up to the task
or whether they would need to be supplemented with additional
information to make this work.

I am confident there will be other proposals emerging from the
meeting, but here's one that can at least be considered in working
further on the problem.
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 07:22:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:36 GMT