W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > November 2005

Additional miscellaneous comments on 23 November draft

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:18:27 +1100
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051127021827.GA4811@jdc>

Unfortunately I missed a couple of points in compiling my comments on the
working draft.

Here are the additional comments.

Examples of conformance claims: consider using the example.com, example.org,
example.net domains in the examples, as these have been reserved for the
purpose and are used in other W3C specifications.

Conformance requirements and the baseline: repeated use is made of the phrase
"assuming user agent support for only the technologies in the chosen
baseline". This phrase needs to be defined. Specifically, it should be pointed
out that what is assumed here amounts to a correct and complete implementation
of each of the technologies in the baseline. In the case of a specification or
standard, this would amount to a conformant implementation. See also my other
comment regarding the question of what constitutes an adequate
definition/description of a baseline.

2.4.8: How does this apply if the scope of the conformance claim is limited to
only one delivery unit, for instance if I make a separate claim for each page
of my Web site, or if I write a single XHTML document, upload it to a Web
server and wish to ensure that it conforms? Maybe the sc should be rewritten
as "If the content consists of a set of delivery units, information about the
user's location in this set is available in each delivery unit". Then you
could define content as whatever is in the scope of a conformance claim.
Naturally, there are other ways of solving the problem.

3.2.3: The above comment on 2.4.8 applies here as well.

3.2.4: The same problem occurs here also--what happens if there is only one
delivery unit in the scope of the conformance claim?
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 02:18:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:05 UTC