Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0

Interesting vision, Iann.

At 03:15 PM 8/18/2000 , Ian Jacobs wrote:
>1) A checkpoint is a requirement that is general enough to
>apply to more than one technology. One document contains
>all of these checkpoints. It is called "WCAG 2.0." 
>It should be short. You don't claim conformance to this 

Throws us out of sync with the ATAG and UAAG, but doable.
Is this normative or informative?  (W3C recommendation or
W3C note?)

>2) For each technology the WG will be addressing (pick HTML),
>create a document entitled "Applying WCAG 2.0 to HTML".
>In that document, each checkpoint explains what is required
>to satisfy it in HTML. People claim conformance to WCAG 2.0 
>for HTML with a URI that designates this document. This document
>would mention HTML elements and attributes by name.

Normative, I assume?

>3) Each technology-specific profile of WCAG 2.0 has a 
>corresponding techniques module. There will also probably be
>a core techniques module for general information.
>Comments welcome,
>  - Ian

This modular approach is in keeping with my suggestions for the
document as well, although the objections raised to my modular
approach would apply to yours as well.  I'd need to know more
about how you handle the issue of "normative" vs "informative"
which I think is the same as "W3C Rec" vs "W3C Note."

Kynn Bartlett  <>             
Director of Accessibility, Edapta        
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet
AWARE Center Director               
Vote for Liz for N. Am. ICANN Nominee!

Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 18:31:38 UTC