Re: WCAG conformance profiles

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason White" <[email protected]>
To: "Web Content Guidelines" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:58 AM
Subject: WCAG conformance profiles

> I propose that WCAG 2.0 introduce the notion of a conformance profile,
> as defined below. In practice this would involve only a minor
> adjustment to the conformance scheme as specified in the latest
> working draft.

Good.

> A conformance profile specifies the level at which conformance is
> claimed (1, 1+, 2, 2+ or 3). In the case of level 1+ or level 2+, the
> conformance profile must also include a list of checkpoints (beyond
> level 1 or level 2, respectively) to which conformance is claimed at a
> higher level. A conformance profile may be provided either in text or
> as metadata.

I think we could use these that was discussed years ago:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999AprJun/0161.html

Using:

((PICS-version 1.1)
 (rating-system "http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag20-conformance")
 (rating-service "http://www.w3.org/WAI")
 (icon "wcag1A")
 (name "W3C WCAG 1.0 Conformance level")
 (description "The W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
               (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/)
               Conformance level Rating System. Claim are not verified
               by W3C. Content providers are solely responsible for
               the use of these logos. ")

 (category  (transmit-as "c") (name "WCAG Conformance level")
  (label  (name "Level 1") (value 0)
          (description "All Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied") )
  (label  (name "Level 1+") (value 1)
          (description "All Priority 1 and some Priority 2 checkpoints are
satisfied") )
  (label  (name "Level 2") (value 2)
          (description "All Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are satisfied") )
  (label  (name "Level 2+") (value 3)
          (description "All Priority 1, 2, and some Priority 3 checkpoints
are satisfied")
  (label  (name "Level 3") (value 4)
          (description "All Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are satisfied")
)))

This content must be put in the file:
http://www.w3.org/wai/wcag20-conformance.rat

Then, as in the old message, the usage in the pages will be the follow:

<meta http-equiv="pics-Label"
      content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.w3.org/wai/wcag20-conformance" labels
        exp "2002.12.31"  for "http://www.foo.com/foo.html"  by
"[email protected]"
        ratings (c 1))' />

So, as for other pics services, is possible also to archive the declaration
of conformity. This is also important because i think there is a need of a
service that could be contacted if some DOC ("Declaration of Conformity")
are considered not correct (this for assure the web developer to have not
wrong "examples" of accessibility level reached).

> A conformance claim must include a conformance profile, either
> directly or via a link. The possibility of linking to a conformance
> profile offers the flexibility inherent in this proposal that
> conformance profiles can be specified separately from the conformance
> claims that refer to them, for example by policy setters. This should
> also simplify the author's task by allowing a link to be used in place
> of a complex (inline) conformance profile.
>
> The term "conformance profile" may, but need not, itself be used in
> the guidelines, as long as the substance of the proposal remains
> clear.

"Conformance profile" is good.

Roberto Scano
IWA/HWG EMEA Coordinator
W3C Advisory Committee Representative for IWA/HWG
International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild
http://www.iwanet.org - http://www.hwg.org
E-Mail: [email protected] - [email protected]