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

aloha, ian!

your points are all well taken, and i would fully support your
outline-for-action -- namely to insert the disclaimers you drafted to the lists
of tools (as well as the list of user agents for UA web space) 

QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE

and to approach the CG on the issue of what constitutes a W3C Validated claim
(which may well be an impossibility, as parsing HTML or XML to ensure that
everything is nested properly is one thing, but checking for the accessibility
of a tool and the content it produces involves more complicated and
sophisticated heuristics, and often necessitate human interpretation slash
reveiw)

gregory.

At 11:46 AM 11/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>"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). 
>
>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.
>
>I think this question merits discussion in the WAI CG since at
>least the UAGL should operate similarly. I suggest that:
>
> - Ian
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/charter3#deliverables
>$Date: 1999/11/18 08:35:54 $ 


--------------------------------------------------------
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>
--------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 19:46:49 UTC