Re: Conformance levels and best practices

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>; "Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: Conformance levels and best practices



>I've always found the term "extended" troublesome, though I've not said
>so before because I haven't been able quite to put my finger on the
>problem.  For that matter, "core" isn't so easy either.
>
>Would it work to replace "core" and "extended" with "minimum" and
>"advanced," respectively? If not, what do "core" and "extended"
actually
>mean, and what connotations do we need to be sure to capture and
>preserve?  (Answers to this question might help us come up with better
>terminology and/or clearer statements about the conformance scheme.  If
>we're having so much trouble with it, I fear that our end users will
>find it even more difficult.)


"Core" is also used in the ISO TS/16071 [1] where the two level like AA
and AAA has defined as "primary" and "secondary".

In one of my last post [2] I've focalized the idea that we need to have
a "solid" core that must be similar to the Level 2 of WCAG 1.0 for not
stop the e-europe project that request AA for guidelines.

This is the way, IMHO...



Roberto Scano
IWA/HWG EMEA Coordinator
W3C Advisory Commitee 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2003/Ref858.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JulSep/0521.html

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:31:00 UTC