RE: Re: Conformance use-cases

Hi Tim,

I haven't provided a definition because I think it will mean different things depending on the circumstances. My main goal was to move past the strict "IP" condition because the world is more complicated than that. For example, the "responsible entity" wording might cover the following:

1. A company that develops and holds the IP of a tool
2. A volunteer in an open-source development community, where the community has decided to put together a claim.
3. A licensed redistributor who has explicit permission to make a claim as part of the license to redistribute.

Cheers,
Jan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. [mailto:frederick.boland@nist.gov]
> Sent: November 11, 2011 7:12 AM
> To: Richards, Jan
> Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Re: Conformance use-cases
> 
> Do we have a definition of "responsible entity"?
> Thanks and best wishes
> Tim Boland NIST
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Richards, Jan [jrichards@ocad.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:58 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Conformance use-cases
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Sueann and I had a chat about conformance today, which prompts me to
> tweak the previous proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-
> wai-au/2011OctDec/0070.html) a bit:
> 
> Proposed Conformance Types:
> ---------------------------
> 1. "Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, or AAA)
> - this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that
> require no other components to produce web content.
> - higher bar to claim a level (e.g. for Level A, all Level A SCs must
> be either met or be judged "not applicable")
> - level "No-Level" is added to allow for full disclosure, as with a
> VPAT
> 
> 2. "Partial" Component-Only Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, AAA)
> - this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that
> would require other components to conform as a complete authoring
> system (e.g., because they do most things but lack a small part:
> checking, repair, the ability to save alternatives for reuse,
> accessible transformation, etc. or because they do just a small part:
> e.g. checking and repair)
> - lower bar to claim a level: "No" answers are recorded, but ignored
> when determining the level ON THE CONDITION that for any "No" answers,
> the tool must not prevent the SC from being met, in theory, by another
> authoring component as part of a larger authoring process. For example,
> if a tool locks down the production of content so that checking and
> repair by an external tool is not possible, it could not use this
> conformance type.
> 
> *As with any software, authoring tools can be an amalgmation of
> components. As with a legal claim, a conformance claim can only be made
> by a responsible entity. Any other attempted "claims" are, in fact,
> reviews.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan

Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 14:39:46 UTC