- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:13:36 -0700
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Jan Richards wrote: > Point 3 is quite tricky. I'd like to see something which asks people to > refrain from making false claims. But who will ask them to withdraw a > claim? The AUWG? A third-party reviewer? A competitor? Since we have to create conformance reports in our Candidate Rec period, I think it would make sense to require a conformance report that meets our specs from any tool vendor that wants to use the logo. Perhaps we can peer-review the evaluations that are submitted. Over and above that, I don't think there's much we can or should do. There's a reason we talk about "conformance" and not "compliance": we don't have any legal standing of our own. If ATAG 2 is adopted as policy, we will have to leave it to those authorities to determine which tools meet the requirements. They're not apt to delegate that responsibility to us, I don't believe, even if we were to assert our own authority. - m
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 23:13:14 UTC