- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:45:21 +1000
- To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg Vanderheiden writes: > Hmmmm > > An interesting question is > > Are we saying that we can't avoid describing baselines but we shouldn't be > setting them? No, that's not how I read it at all. I don't think we're ensnared in that kind of inconsistent position. What we are saying is essentially the following: 1. It appears to be possible to specify baselines outside the normative WCAG 2.0 document without creating problems for either the success criteria or the techniques. These baselines would not be normative but would limit the scope of the techniques and offer guidance to content developers. 2. With respect to HTML, CSS and scripts it has been proposed that three baselines be offered: one that makes minimal assumptions, another that roughly approximates contemporary user agent functionality, and a third that representes the functionality that will be available when XHTML 2.0, the DOM and scripts are implemented. 3. With respect to HTML and CSS, the three baselines outlined above are not mutually inconsistent; that is, one can write content that will work across all three sets of baseline assumptions. This analysis has not been extended to scripts. 4. It has been proposed that guideline 4.2 be deleted on grounds of redundancy. I have offered instead a general constraint on baselines which I have suggested should be integrated into the guidelines. 5. It has been suggested that conformance claims must specify baselines, and the details, with examples, have been set out to show how this would operate in practice. I think this is a fair summary of the major proposals currently before the working group.
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 06:46:35 UTC