Re: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Claims

Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> At 12:51 9/05/2006, 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.
> </quote>
> 
> Yes, you can exclude directories from your conformance claim, but
> not individual files (let alone parts of files, which would be relevant
> to sites with user-contributed content such as blogs).

I think, Carlos talks about parts of the web site, not parts of a 
resource. But http://example.com/nav identifies a resource, not a 
directory with various sub-directories. AFAIK, there is no such thing as 
a directory in URLs, however URLs can be hierarchical.

> <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
> 
> It could be very interesting if somebody from the WCAG WG could clarify
> whether it was the intention of the examples or not.
> </quote>
> 
> I can't remember the discussion about this example, but my assumption
> is that the URI identifies a subdomain.

How can it? It identifies a resource.

-- 
Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE)
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 21:16:09 UTC