- 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