W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2002

RE: Issue Letters of Conformance

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:01:20 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 01:38 PM 5/23/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi, Karl,
>the motive was to match the WAI. I remember Ian recommended us to adopt
>this numbering format.

As I recalled, Ian once suggested "A, double-A, triple-A", which is what 
WAI uses. At [1] I found this:

"Here's why we chose "Level Double-A" instead of "Level 2": It wasn't
clear to people that "2" meant "Priority 1 AND 2 requirements are
met." It could be interpreted as "no priority 1 requirements are met,
only those P2 and below (P3).".
I would recommend sticking with A/AA/AAA just because that system
is already familiar to people within W3C.
Is there an important reason for changing nomenclature?"


p.s.  If we were to decide that there was reason to change, how about: Q, 
double-Q, triple-Q?  WAI uses "double-A" instead of "AA", for the reason 
that its more accessible, I'm told.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jan/0062.html
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 20:00:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC