- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:47:52 +1100
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On various occasions the issue of multiple, dynamically generated versions of Web content, including "final form" presentations in markup languages such as XSL-FO, has been raised. The precise question at issue has been how the availability of a plurality of versions, potentially in different formats, should be taken into account in the WCAG 2.0 conformance scheme. At the core of the WCAG 2.0 conformance arrangements is that, in order to conform at all, the content must meet every checkpoint at a minimum level. As Gregg pointed out, there are people whose needs are such that they require, at the very least, content that conforms to every checkpoint at a minimum level. Consequently, content would be inaccessible to this population if there did not exist at least one version which met all of the minimum-level success criteria in the guidelines. This observation, combined with a desire to permit accurate and complete reporting in conformance claims, taking into account the possibility of multiple versions, motivates the following proposal. Where multiple versions of web content exist: 1. It conforms to the guidelines only if there exists at least one version of the content that satisfies all checkpoints at the minimum level. 2. If there are other versions that meet specific checkpoints beyond the minimum level, the conformance claim must specify, for each such version, the checkpoints which it implements and the level (i.e., 1, 2 or 3) of any such implementation. In some cases it may not be possible to identify each available version, in which case the conformance claim should specify the effect of various content selection/adaptation options on the conformance status of the content. 3. If the interface whereby content selection/adaptation options are selected is provided as part of the content itself (rather than being, for instance, a feature of a user agent), it must conform to every checkpoint at or beyond the minimum level. 4. The entity claiming conformance to the guidelines is responsible only for the content in the forms in which it leaves Web servers under that entity's control; the content may be subject to further adaptation processes (e.g., by proxy servers) prior to receipt by the user agent. (This last point is more of a note than a requirement, I suspect).
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 02:48:30 UTC