- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:08:19 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 16:32 10/08/2009, Chris Reeve wrote: >The IT Team and my boss is thinking it maybe a good time to ask >about Parital Conformance >at ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial>http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial. >The company site fails (3.2.4 Consistent ID, and maybe 2.4.4 for >downlodable documents). I said maybe, because no member of the IT >team is sure about 2.4.4 for downlodable documents. > >However, if these two Sucession Criteria passed, I would reach >conformance AA. > >If we end up with a sufficient technique for 3.2.4, but not for >2.4.4, for downlodable documents, what circumstances can we use to >say "partial conformance", eventhough 2.4.4 could be a failure >rather than stating the site failed. One think to keep in mind is that a statement of partial conformance is not a conformance statement, it is a statement of non-conformance. Best regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ --- "Better products and services through end-user empowerment" http://www.usem-net.eu/ --- Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 15:09:09 UTC