W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Proposed Text for Section 1.3 (was Re: Meeting tomorrow)

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:46:58 -0500
Message-ID: <3842AE02.5538FDB6@w3.org>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>
CC: love26@gorge.net, Authoring Tools Guidelines List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
"Gregory J. Rosmaita" wrote:
> aloha, bill!
> what we desperately need to do -- through the agency of lists and newsgroups,
> announcements on the W3C site, the press release when we go to full Rec--is
> heavily advertise the fact that we: a) welcome comments from developers,
> interested parties, users, and b) that we are attempting to maintain a
> comprehensive list of authoring tools, 

Apparently the WG has committed to this since it's listed
as a deliverable in the charter [1]:

      "4. Report on implementation progress and 
          assessment of need for subsequent work in this area."

There may be other ways to satisfy this deliverable than a list
of conforming tools, but such a list does not seem to be beyond
the scope of the charter.

An important question may be raised: Is W3C the definitive authority
for validating conformance claims? This question is pertinent even
without publication of a list of conforming tools on the site.
Publication of conformance claims at the W3C will surely contribute
to the perception that W3C has the authoritative word (and maybe
even exclusively). 

I think this question merits discussion in the WAI CG since at
least the UAGL should operate similarly. I suggest that:

1) Any list of conforming tools indicate that this is not the
   definitive list of conforming tools nor an advertisement
   for particular tools. It's just a convenient repository.

2) Any entry on the list clearly indicate whether W3C has
   "validated" the claim or not. Whether W3C chooses to validate
   claims at all is another matter for the CG.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/charter3#deliverables
$Date: 1999/11/18 08:35:54 $ 

> and would appreciate hearing from anyone
> in the business -- as well as anyone who has used the tools and who has read,
> or would care to read, ATAG and the Techs document...
> that way, eventually, we may well someday have enough data to compile the
> database driven tool descriptor about which charles is wont to wax rhetorical
> -- a form driven, show me the tools engine, where the user gets to choose the
> criteria...
> gregory.
> Bill wrote:
> >CMcCN:: "...the working group has a page which describes the conformance
> >of various tools at XXX."
> >
> >WL: If we're going to "name names" I feel we are treading treacherous
> >slippery slope. I don't think the intent of our charter is to provide
> >lists (necessarily incomplete) of conforming/non-conforming tools.
> >Unless the makers of the tools request inclusion our liability is
> >evident and unless we find *every* tool our neglect is unfair to some
> >perhaps unknown excellence. We can describe problems in current
> >(unnamed) products and point out satisfactory compliances - with
> >anonymity.
> >
> >--
> >Love.
> >http://dicomp.pair.com
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------
> He that lives on Hope, dies farting
>      -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
>    WebMaster and Minister of Propaganda, VICUG NYC
>         <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html>
> --------------------------------------------------------

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 11:47:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:28:22 UTC