- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:40:08 -0600
- To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
OK Then my edit would be If multiple formats can be retrieved from a URL through content negotiation, then the conformance claim would be for the form that is returned when no negotiation is conducted (unless the server returns an error for that condition). Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 6:08 PM To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: Conformance Section wtih Edits incorporated Gregg Vanderheiden writes: > I think this is good > > The only change I would make is that the accessible version has to be the > "default" version (the one that is delivered if there is no content > negotiation or the user agent (or user) is not capable of content > negotiation.) When last we discussed this, I raised the scenario in which the server's response to a failure to negotiate is to issue a protocol error. Arguably, a protocol error isn't Web content, although I suppose if it is in the form of an XML document instance, there is room for dispute. Of course, an error response is not "the same" content as that provided by the resource, so it cannot be regarded as "a version" of that content. I think it would be better to say that if there is a default version, it must conform at the specified conformance level, and if there is no default, any failure to negotiate, the error message or other response issued by the server must conform at least at Level A. Does that work?
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 01:40:11 UTC