Re: Conformance Claims

Al Gilman wrote:
> At 03:13 PM 3/3/99 -0500, eric hansen wrote:
> >Following is a suggested revision and augmentation of the material on
> >conformance claims in the 2/26/99 version. By Eric Hansen {EH}.
> >====
> >Conformance Levels
> >
> >This document defines three conformance levels: {EH: Please note below that
> >the following approach avoids confusion by removing reference to priorities
> >in the titles of conformance levels}
> >
> >1. Conformance Level 1 (CL-1): Conforms to {EH: or "Follows" or "Adheres
> >to" or "Satisfies"} all priority one checkpoints.
> >2. Conformance Level 2 (CL-2): Conforms to all priority one and two
> >checkpoints.
> >3. Conformance Level 3 (CL-3): Conforms to all priority one, two, and three
> >checkpoints.
> This numbering is backwards.  If you use numbers, level 1 of conformance
> must be the strictest.  The die is cast in the order used for priorities.
> Don't cross up the reader by reversing your field here.
> Sorry I didn't catch this earlier.  Thanks to Eric for making the
> proposition clear.
> Otherwise define an enumeration of adverbs, for example {essentially,
> substantially, entirely} conformant, for conformance to all { P1 , P1 & P2
> , P1 & P2 & P3 } checkpoints.

We discussed this on the teleconference several times. We
chose "P1", "P12", and "P123" so that listeners would immediately
know which sets of checkpoints were satisfied. Numbering them
alone (e.g., "P3") was confusing because one wouldn't know whether
that meant P3 alone or P1 + P2 + P3. 

"P123" is the longest because it means you've done the most work.

> >Conformance Claims
> >
> >Claims of conformance must provide the following information.
> >
> >1. Content scope: The scope of the content that the claim covers, e.g., a
> >portion of a page, a single page, or a whole site.
> >2. Conformance level: Which level (CL-1, CL-2, or CL-3) has been achieved.
> >3. Guidelines title: E.g., "W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines".
> >4. Guidelines URL: The URL of the guidelines document, e.g.,
> ><>
> It must be explained that this is the "this version" URL from the document
> and not the "latest version" URL.

That's why the wording in the original statement was:

"Identify this document with this URI:

This was to avoid needing to explain the difference between
the latest version and the specific version. 

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs ( 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814

Received on Wednesday, 3 March 1999 16:57:21 UTC