- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:58:45 +1100
- To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG writes: > > 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) Two comments: 1. This has been superseded by RDF/EARL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ 2. The proposed PICS ratings for levels 1+ and 2+ don't specify which checkpoints have been met beyond level 1 in the first case and beyond level 2 in the second. Thus they don't constitute a complete or accurate conformance claim, because someone reading this claim wouldn't know which checkpoints were involved. That is why I specified in my proposal that at levels 1+ and 2+ the relevant checkpoints have to be identified in the profile. I think this same concern also underlies Ian's objections to the wording of the conformance section of the current draft. Due to an editorial oversight, it wasn't made clear that unless one is claiming conformance at one of the three levels, the additional checkpoints implemented at a higher level have to be listed. I think text and EARL should be the preferred methods of making claims.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 04:59:02 UTC