- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 09:18:20 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Cc: shadi@w3.org
Quality Assurance Framework: Specification Guidelines (QA SpecGL) Good Practice 3: "Provide the wording for conformance claims" [1] may be a resource for the discussion excerpted following. In addition, both QASpecGL Good Practice 4 - "Provide an Implementation Conformance Statement pro forma" [2], and QASpecGL Good Practice 5 - "Require an Implementation Conformance Statement as part of conformance claims" [3] may be helpful in the discussion excerpted following (as well as in future discussions?). Christophe, thanks for the pointer to this discussion! Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#conformance-claim-gp [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ics-gp [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ics-claim-gp At 11:17 AM 5/15/2006 +0200, you wrote: >Hi, > >Last week, there was a discussion about the scope of conformance claims on >the ERT list. Below is an excerpt from the discussion. >For the whole discussion, see the part of the thread that starts at >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006May/0024.html. > > > >On 9 May 2006, Carlos Velasco asked ><blockquote> >what happens when a delivery unit (...) has a CSS like >http://example.com/css/example.css? It is in scope or not? ></blockquote> > > >Christophe Strobbe responded: ><blockquote> >A stylesheet is not a Web unit but an "authored unit", and when it is >"intended to be used as a part of another authored unit", it is an >"authored component" >(http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html#authored-componentdef). >Conformance claims apply to Web units, not to authored units. So if a Web >unit within the scope of your conformance claim uses a CSS that is outside >the scope of your conformance claim, my understanding is that the >conformance claim applies to the Web unit *with* the CSS (but not to the >CSS in isolation). ></blockquote> > > >Then Johannes Koch wrote back: ><blockquote> >Let's make it a little more complicated :-) As Carlos Iglesias quoted, a >Web Unit is > > "A collection of information, consisting of one or more resources, > intended to be rendered together, and identified by a single Uniform > Resource Identifier (such as URLs)". > >Let's consider an HTML document with various linked stylesheets, one for >screen, one for print, one for projection, ... They are not intended to be >rendered (all) together. So which CSS file belongs to the Web Unit >identified by the HTML document's URL? Or are there different Web Units >for each CSS file together with the HTML document. But how do I identify >them? The HTML document has only one URL. ></blockquote> > > >Christophe Strobbe: ><blockquote> >You can't make assumptions about how the type of user agent that will be >used to render the HTML document: on a screen, through projection, on a >refreshable braille display, with speech synthesis, ... So if the HTML >document, say 'home.htm', has stylesheets for each of these media types, >the following would all count as Web units: >- home.htm with the CSS for 'screen', >- home.htm with the CSS for 'projection', >- home.htm with the CSS for 'braille', >- home.htm with the CSS for 'aural', >- ... > >So the question becomes: if you have a conformance claim that has the >above 'home.htm' in its scope, does the conformance claim cover each of >the above examples? Since you can't make assumptions about the user agent, >I think the answer is yes. >(How you represent this in EARL is another matter.) I don't think it makes >sense to define the Web unit as home.htm + screen.css + projection.css + >braille.css, ... > > >Come to think of it: if you use an object element with one or more >fallbacks nested inside it (see the example slightly below >http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#idx-object-5), >I think the Web unit you claim conformance for is the HTML document with >the outermost object element (with the TheEarth.py applet). Now let us >look at a few scenarios. > >1. Let us assume that Python applets are not in the baseline and that >there is a fallback for each Python applet using a technology within the >baseline, then the conformance claim applies to the fallback (and the >Python applets must not interfere with the content). I don't know if EARL >can take baselines into account (I'm too tired to check now). Maybe a >"Baseline Description Language" would be useful? > >2. Alternatively, let us assume that Python applets are in the baseline >and there is a fallback for each Python applet using another technology >within the baseline. What happens if the Python applet cannot be retrieved >from the server, so that the fallback is used instead. How does this >affect the conformance claim? Can EARL make statements about the HTML >document + fallback object? > >3. Let us assume that Python applets are in the baseline and there is a >fallback for each Python applet using another technology outside the >baseline. (I think this is not very logical, but it is possible.) What >happens if the Python applet cannot be retrieved from the server, so that >the fallback is used instead. How does this affect the conformance claim? ></blockquote> > > >Johannes Koch, about the HTML file with different stylesheets per media type: ><blockquote> >(...) how do you identify the different web units? The URL for the HTML >document is not enough, because the HTML document is the same in all the >web units. ></blockquote> > > >Regards, > >Christophe > >-- >Christophe Strobbe >K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on >Document Architectures >Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM >tel: +32 16 32 85 51 >http://www.docarch.be/ > > >Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm > >
Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 13:19:04 UTC