Re: Usage of degrees of conformance

I concur with Dom's assessment. (see below)

Degrees of conformance are fine with me - and I prefer to be consistent 
with what has already been done (in WAI) and have A, AA, AAA rather than 
use a different designation and do what I think we all agree we want to 
encourage not to happen - that is, use different terminology when what has 
been used before us will work just fine.  This helps minimize the confusion.

lynne



>The latest editor draft of the spec GL [2] doesn't make any
>recommendation in this regard. Maybe it should?
>
>Specifically, the checkpoint doesn't differentiate between a profiled
>specification vs a specification using degrees of conformance (ala WAI
>or QA). Rather, it does differentiate them, but not enough (in my
>opinion): a profile is a specification per se and the conformance clause
>belongs to each profile, whereas in the WAI/QA case, one specification
>holds the 3 degrees of conformance.
>I would suggest that degrees of conformance be strongly discouraged for
>anything but guidelines, or maybe more broadly, anything but "foundation
>or abstract" specifications [3].
>
>Dom
>
>2. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/qaframe-spec-0804.html#Ck-define-all-levels
>3. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/qaframe-spec-0804.html#document-categories
>--
>Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/INRIA
>mailto:dom@w3.org