- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 18:41:06 +0100
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org
hi lachlan >why should we try to optimise the conformance criteria to be machine checkable I never stated that it needs to be "machine checkable". what is said that it needs to be independently checkable. regards stevef 2008/5/22 Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>: > Steven Faulkner wrote: >> >> Seems like a good reason to revisit any examples of requirements in the >> spec and provide requirements that are practical to independently test >> conformance, rather than make requirements that cannot be tested by anybody >> other than the author. > > Why should we try to optimise the conformance criteria to be machine > checkable by people other than the author (or those affiliated with the > author)? Machines are inherently limited in their ability to check > documents, so reducing the conformance criteria to be mostly machine > checkable isn't such a good idea; and optimising for people other than > authors seems misguided. > > -- > Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software > http://lachy.id.au/ > http://www.opera.com/ > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 17:41:46 UTC