- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 14:40:21 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi Carlos and Carlos ;-) At 13:07 9/05/2006, Carlos A Velasco wrote: <quote> Carlos Iglesias wrote: <blockqoute>(...) Scoping of conformance claims. Conformance claims can be limited, or "scoped," to apply to only some parts of a Web site. Scoping by URI to exclude sections of a site is allowed so that authors can make claims for just some parts of a site. Example 3 above is a scoped conformance claim. ... Example 3: On 21 June 2007, http://example.com/nav and http://example.com/docs conform to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Triple-A. </blockqoute> Apparently they are referring to a whole directory just by the base URI (they talk about parts, not documents or Web units) i.e. applying the "Directory" Scope concept. May the force be with them! And what happens when a delivery unit (just resisting to use Web unit for the moment) has a CSS like http://example.com/css/example.css? It is in scope or not? </quote> A stylesheet is not a Web unit but an "authored unit", and when it is "intended to be used as a part of another authored unit", it is an "authored component" (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html#authored-componentdef). Conformance claims apply to Web units, not to authored units. So if a Web unit within the scope of your conformance claim uses a CSS that is outside the scope of your conformance claim, my understanding is that the conformance claim applies to the Web unit *with" the CSS (but not to the CSS in isolation). Does that make sense? Carlos Iglesias wrote: <quote> Similary, in the first example: <blockqoute> Example 1: On 23 March 2005, http://www.wondercall.example.com conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Level A. </blockqoute> In this case, they are apparently referring to a whole subdomain just namin the base URI </quote> And Carlos Velasco asked: <quote> And what about a CGI script in http://www.example.com/cgi? Belongs or not? </quote> Do you mean a Web unit in http://www.wondercall.example.com/ that uses a CGI at http://www.example.com/cgi? My view that if you have a form somewhere under http://www.wondercall.example.com/ that submits to a CGI at or under http://www.example.com/cgi, the response will also belong to http://www.example.com/, not to ttp://www.wondercall.example.com/, so for example 1 above, the CGI is outside the scope of the claim. I hope it is really that simple ;-) (I wonder what the man on the Clapham omnibus would say.) Carlos: <quote> Although I am also interested, I still think conformance claims are something for which EARL might be used as support information, but not as the claim itself or, like a blanket statement. </quote> The current examples of conformance claims are running text, but I don't think that is meant is to exclude other, e.g. machine-readable, formats. Using EARL (or other RDF-based formats) for conformance claims would reduce the readability of these claims for mere mortals. Carlos Velasco also wrote: <quote> In fact, it [Web unit] is a bastard son of a delivery unit. </quote> Carlos, I hope you'll get used to the term. It's not so weird if you consider that there is also an test framework called jWebUnit (http://jwebunit.sourceforge.net/) :-) Regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 12:40:44 UTC