Re: Organizing WCAG 2.0

Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> 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
> >document.
> Throws us out of sync with the ATAG and UAAG, but doable.

From what I"ve heard, there's going to be out of synch-ness
anyway based on WCAG 2.0 requirements.

> Is this normative or informative?  (W3C recommendation or
> W3C note?)

It should be a Rec. 
> >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."

I think that all the documents should be Recommendations.
But you only claim conformance to the technology-specific ones.
There is no requirement at W3C that a Recommendation have conformance
provisions, so we can publish a set of fairly abstract principles
that can be the basis for later technology specific profiles.

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 18:37:27 UTC