RE: Conformance claims, 4.2, and techniques

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