- From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:01:26 +0100
- To: <paulwalsh@segala.com>, <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I totally agree! ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: "Paul Walsh, Segala"<paulwalsh@segala.com> Inviato: 11/03/06 23.12.22 A: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Oggetto: RE: CONFORMANCE issues & resolutions -- based on new conformance section. <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1786> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1786> 1786 Suggest using EARL for conformance claims conformance section should refer to the possibility of using EARL to provide machine-readable conformance claims. [PW] Perhaps the group would consider using the output of the W3C's first incubator activity for conformance claims? That is, the Web Content Label (WCL) [1]. The Mobile Web Initiative (MWI) mobileOK Trustmark will come in the form of a Content Label, with no visual icons to represent conformance. It makes sense to me to use EARL for recording test descriptions, test cases etc. and a Content Label to make conformance claims. Content Labelling is becoming increasingly popular by many associations that have their own code of conduct, so there are numerous real use cases within the industry already. I'm interested to hear the groups thoughts on this one - I know Shadi might have a different opinion :) Cheers Paul Segala [Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Sunday, 12 March 2006 08:55:42 UTC