Re: Assertion "tool"

> >   Since it is on the agenda then we might want to recommend that WCAG
2.0
> >   provide a spot for it in the guidelines?
> >   Specifically that there be a "placeholder" sort of thing that deals
with
> >   making a conformance assertion in order to be conformant?
>
> I propose we copy the conformance section from WCAG 1.0 as a start on
this.
> (Note that this is an endorsement of that system, against the strawman put
up
> that had a simple yes/no scheme).

Ages ago I proposed something like this to WAI IG, based on what Mr.
Loughborough had been talking about on RDF IG (whilst I was developing
swi-dev type stuff). I wasn't a WAI member at the time, and it went
completely unnoticed...now it is being raised again, I've dug up the URI:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2000OctDec/0324.html

The guideline suggestions I made back then still appear to stand, but they
would have to be less technologically oriented for WCAG 2.0

For those that don't know, Charles is talking about this section:-
[[[
Claims of conformance to this document must use one of the following two
forms.
Form 1:
The guidelines title: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"
The guidelines URI: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505
The conformance level satisfied: "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A".
The scope covered by the claim (e.g., page, site, or defined portion of a
site.).
]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#conformance

All we need are as many different ways as possible for expressing that (a
techniques thing), i.e. in HTML and RDF. Notice that I already gave two
examples in the note that I wrote, and that we have online examples of RDF.
Also, when ADL is created, we could use that: in *whatever* form it takes
on.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 18:01:37 UTC