- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:54:17 -0500 (EST)
- To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Nick had written: > >I've now used five levels: > > - Certain: we know this violates a guideline; no human check required. > > - High: A construct that is likely to be wrong, but we're not certain. > > - Medium: We can't tell; human checking required > > - Low: Something that's probably OK, but should be flagged for checking. > > - "-": Messages that definitely don't mean there's a problem. > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Al Gilman wrote: > This last needs better definition. Why is there any event thrown? On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Nick Kew wrote: There was a very specific reason: pseudo-legalistic completeness in implementing Section508. The two messages that carry this weighting are: (1) A message in every document, saying "provide a text-only alternative if this fails to meet the criteria". (2) A message re clientside imagemaps, noting that valid HTML is sufficient to meet the guideline. Since Page Valet is a validator, no additional message is required for this section. CMN: Isn't there a notApplicable property in EARL?
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 11:55:31 UTC