Re: Conformance proposal re-drafted

I agree with Jason that a link to the date-specific version is necessary.

I also feel that the proposed use of the word document is confusing, since
many people regard a web page or site as a document (W3C being foremost in
that trend). It is the process or standard (usually described by a
particular document) which conforms.

As an illustration, it is possible to write a document which describes a
conformant policy for website creation in Charles Inc. and produce that
document only as a single image of text with no alternative
representation. The document does not conform, but the process or standard
does.

I would prefer to see a minimalist description of the information required
to express conformance, which included the dated URI of the document
(expressed either as a link to the document or by rendering that URI in
text) and the level of conformance claimed - A, double-A or triple-A. I
would then provide a suggested wording for a process description such as

This policy requires that everything we do conform to triple-A level of
the Web Accessibility Initiative's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
2.0, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/the-real-thing-19991111.

And an example for a web page, such as

 <A HREF="http://www.w3.org/TR/the-real-thing-199903xx"><IMG
SRC="double-a" ALT="WAI Double-A level"></A>

Charles

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Jason White wrote:

  Instead of, or in addition to citing the WAI home page, a conformance
  statement associated with an entire site should provide a link to the
  date-specific version of the guidelines document with which it claims
  conformance.
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Received on Monday, 22 March 1999 18:45:00 UTC