Re: Proposal: Simplified presentation of conformance model

"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me. See below for a comment (labeled "EH:").
[snip] 

> EH:
> 
> I presume that the following are the three conditions:

Yes.
 
> >From 23 Oct 2000 draft:
> 
> "The checkpoint makes requirements for graphical user interfaces or
> graphical viewports and the subject only has an audio or tactile user
> interface or viewports."
> 
> "The checkpoint refers to a role of content (e.g., transcript, caption, text
> equivalent, etc.) that the subject does not recognize. For instance, HTML
> user agents can recognize "alt", OBJECT content, or NOFRAMES content as
> providing equivalents for other content since these are specified by the
> markup language. HTML user agents are not expected to recognize that a text
> description embedded without indicative markup in a nearby paragraph is a
> text equivalent for the image."
> 
> "The checkpoint requires control of content properties (e.g., video or
> animation rate) that the subject cannot control (e.g., the format does not
> allow it) or does not recognize (e.g., because the property is controlled by
> a script in a manner that the subject cannot recognize)."

Note:

I made some other changes so that the model works as a series
of successive filters. This was tricky for content labels,
which do not subtract checkpoints but add them. For the moment,
my "solution" is that by default, a well-formed claim indicates
"All" (same idea for input modalities). It's not ideal, but it
does mean that by default all checkpoints are in scope.

 _ Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 28 December 2000 13:07:54 UTC