conformance model redux

I'm having concerns about changing the nomenclature of the conformance 
model in WCAG 2.0, in part brought about by remarks I heard from Chuck on a 
radio program in which he said Canada (with a "policy" not a "law") called 
for conformance with P1/P2. Even though there are consistently pointed-out 
flaws/inconsistencies with that scheme, to some considerable extent: 1) it 
works; 2) it was guaranteed to have some stability. The word was 
"normative". If the scheme can be too blithely changed, we are behaving 
like a greedy software manufacturer putting out "Rev. 1.1" endlessly to 
make earlier versions obsolete.

Although "normative" doesn't equate to "engraved in stone", it should be 
given respect. If the new "model" can be mapped to the previous one, it 
probably need not be!

This is an EO problem: how can we maintain believability/respectability? We 
lobbied hard/effectively to get our recommendations "adopted" (sometimes 
even incorporated into law/regulation/policy) and we must maintain a stance 
that this stuff is still just as important as when we urged its mandating.


It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious! 

Received on Saturday, 16 August 2003 22:16:52 UTC