- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 19:20:34 +1100
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg Vanderheiden writes: > > As to being normative but not checkpoints. I'm not sure what that > means. It is an interesting thought. At first it seemed like > everything normative needed to be checkable -- but thinking further > it would seem that only those things required for conformance would > need to be testable checkpoints. Maybe we can have normative > suggestions that are not required. In doing this we would (de facto) be > defining a "core" of testable requirements plus a set of additional > requirements to which entities could claim conformance, but for > which adequate testing could not be carried out. In the latter case > we would be essentially treating the author's declaration as final > (a third party couldn't conduct some tests and show that the > author's conformance claim was correct, or indeed erroneous). I am not objecting to the idea at all, merely pointing out its implications. If we want those consequences then we can go ahead.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 03:20:43 UTC