- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:59:30 +0100
- To: <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:58 AM Subject: WCAG conformance profiles > I propose that WCAG 2.0 introduce the notion of a conformance profile, > as defined below. In practice this would involve only a minor > adjustment to the conformance scheme as specified in the latest > working draft. Good. > A conformance profile specifies the level at which conformance is > claimed (1, 1+, 2, 2+ or 3). In the case of level 1+ or level 2+, the > conformance profile must also include a list of checkpoints (beyond > level 1 or level 2, respectively) to which conformance is claimed at a > higher level. A conformance profile may be provided either in text or > as metadata. I think we could use these that was discussed years ago: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999AprJun/0161.html Using: ((PICS-version 1.1) (rating-system "http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag20-conformance") (rating-service "http://www.w3.org/WAI") (icon "wcag1A") (name "W3C WCAG 1.0 Conformance level") (description "The W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/) Conformance level Rating System. Claim are not verified by W3C. Content providers are solely responsible for the use of these logos. ") (category (transmit-as "c") (name "WCAG Conformance level") (label (name "Level 1") (value 0) (description "All Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied") ) (label (name "Level 1+") (value 1) (description "All Priority 1 and some Priority 2 checkpoints are satisfied") ) (label (name "Level 2") (value 2) (description "All Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are satisfied") ) (label (name "Level 2+") (value 3) (description "All Priority 1, 2, and some Priority 3 checkpoints are satisfied") (label (name "Level 3") (value 4) (description "All Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are satisfied") ))) This content must be put in the file: http://www.w3.org/wai/wcag20-conformance.rat Then, as in the old message, the usage in the pages will be the follow: <meta http-equiv="pics-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.w3.org/wai/wcag20-conformance" labels exp "2002.12.31" for "http://www.foo.com/foo.html" by "jow@foo.com" ratings (c 1))' /> So, as for other pics services, is possible also to archive the declaration of conformity. This is also important because i think there is a need of a service that could be contacted if some DOC ("Declaration of Conformity") are considered not correct (this for assure the web developer to have not wrong "examples" of accessibility level reached). > A conformance claim must include a conformance profile, either > directly or via a link. The possibility of linking to a conformance > profile offers the flexibility inherent in this proposal that > conformance profiles can be specified separately from the conformance > claims that refer to them, for example by policy setters. This should > also simplify the author's task by allowing a link to be used in place > of a complex (inline) conformance profile. > > The term "conformance profile" may, but need not, itself be used in > the guidelines, as long as the substance of the proposal remains > clear. "Conformance profile" is good. Roberto Scano IWA/HWG EMEA Coordinator W3C Advisory Committee Representative for IWA/HWG International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild http://www.iwanet.org - http://www.hwg.org E-Mail: emea@iwanet.org - w3c-rep@iwanet.org
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 03:59:48 UTC