RE: Conformance Section wtih Edits incorporated

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