- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:00:52 -0700
- To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'Lisa Yayla'" <lisa.yayla@statped.no>, <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: <shadi@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > Until there is > some kind of trust framework, I don't suppose that they are likely to > generally believe a lot of metadata (historically their approach has > been not to trust individual metadata, and it has worked as an > anti-spam technique to a certain extent). > It occurs to me that this is where the missing-in-action EARL would (should!) come to play, especially if there were the ability to somehow "digitally sign" the EARL report with a trusted certificate - be it either a "hard-core" code-signing certificate or even a light-weight PGP or Thawte style email signing certificate - any type of 3rd party, trusted authority certificate would suffice. The simple fact that a person is prepared to put their name on the line in the assertion of "accessibility" would go a long way, IMHO, to establish that trust. Hello EARL, where are you? JF -- John Foliot foliot@wats.ca Web Accessibility Specialist WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 14:01:58 UTC