RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes

Hey John,

Many thanks for the feedback. Everything you say should be included in the
minutes, this was my point. From the minutes of the meeting, it would appear
that only EARL was discussed and Content Labelling wasn't talked about. It's
important to record all the key issues and decisions of those issues, even
if to say that they're still open. Apologies for the tongue twister :)

Regarding the incubator activity, nice to see you've understood it well.
Everything you say is true. We plan to come to a final conclusion about the
output of the activity by July! The specification was written before we even
launched the activity so its like to need minor refinements only.

Also, an EU Safer Internet Plus project called Quatro [1], has already
created the schema for WAI Single-A, Double-A and Triple-A conformance
claims. So, this can be referenced and/or used today. Note that ERCIM is one
of the project partners.

Regarding the Web Content Label Working Group (WCL WG) [2], WCAG could
reference the output, so any 'refinements' made to the specification won't
make any difference and won't impact the WCAG document in any way.

Does that help?



      -----Original Message-----
      [] On Behalf Of John M Slatin
      Sent: 17 March 2006 14:57
      To: Paul Walsh, Segala; Ben Caldwell; WCAG-WG
      Cc:;; Jo Rabin
      Subject: RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes
      Hello, Paul. I'll just jump in here.
      The Working Group did *not* reach a definitive decision 
      yesterday about referencing either EARL or WCL. The group 
      felt that we did not yet have enough information to reach 
      a sound decision on this important matter.
      Therefore, we decided to leave the issue open pending 
      further investigation. We welcome  additional information 
      about WCL, RDF-CL, etc.
      I did read the statement about the WCL Incubator Activity 
      that you sent us the other day. If I understood it 
      correctly, the W3C has not yet approved WCL. Again, if I 
      understood the document correctly, the XG's aim is to 
      explore the options for a new content labeling scheme; 
      one of the options under consideration is to consider 
      whether the existing RDF-CL is adequate for the purpose. 
      If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know!
      To reiterate: the issue remains open. We welcome 
      information that will help us learn more.
      Thanks so much!
      "Good design is accessible design." 
      John Slatin, Ph.D.
      Director, Accessibility Institute
      University of Texas at Austin
      FAC 248C
      1 University Station G9600
      Austin, TX 78712
      ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
      -----Original Message-----
      [] On Behalf Of Paul Walsh, Segala
      Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:14 am
      To: 'Ben Caldwell'; 'WCAG-WG'
      Cc:;; 'Jo Rabin'
      Subject: RE: 16 March 2006 Minutes
      I'm unable to speak with Sorcha because our HQ are out 
      partying (St.
      Patrick's Day!). So, can you please direct me to the 
      section of the minutes that document Segala's request to 
      reference the use of Content Labels for conformance 
      claims? I notice you've included EARL, but I'm unable to 
      find Content Labels.
      I've CC'd David because he's a member of the ERT group 
      and Jo as he's a member of the WCL group with David.
      Kind regards,
            -----Original Message-----
            [] On Behalf Of Ben Caldwell
            Sent: 17 March 2006 00:39
            To: WCAG-WG
            Subject: 16 March 2006 Minutes
            Hi all,
            Just posted the minutes from today's meeting:
            Please let me know if you spot any errors or omissions,
            Ben Caldwell | <> Trace Research 
            and Development Center <>

Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 16:29:01 UTC