Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Alexandre Alapetite ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 We appreciate the
interest that you have taken in these guidelines.

We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many
constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause
us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited
until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters.

This message contains the comments you submitted and the resolutions
to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of
your original comment on, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at to say whether you are
satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly

We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines
and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of
issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at . Please see for more information about the current review.

Thank you,

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

Comment 1:

(Issue ID: LC-463)

Item Number: Conformance claims
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

While many accessibility criteria can hardly be formalised to be
automatically checked by a validator, some of them can.

Previous attempts have been made to formalise some of WCAG 1.0, such
as the W3C "Web Content Accessibility Checking Service"
[] using Schematron
[] or the more advanced Petr
Nalevka's "Relaxed validator" [] using
Relax NG with embedded Schematron

Proposed Change:

Propose some schemas for checking some of the accessibility rules in
(at least) HTML documents (using e.g. XML Schema, Relax NG,
Schematron) checking for the criteria that can be formalised. Relax NG
+ Schematron is imho a good candidate.

Response from Working Group:

This is a recommendation for a method for checking content for
conformance, not a success criterion for conformance. The Working
Group is not requiring that authors use any particular technique or
tools for determining conformance. We believe this comment is best
directed to the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:26:57 UTC