You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
595 lines
23 KiB
595 lines
23 KiB
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
|
|
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
|
|
<html lang="en">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
|
|
<title>W3C - QA - W3C Certification Activity Proposal DRAFT</title>
|
|
<meta name="Keywords" content="qa, quality assurance, conformance">
|
|
<meta name="Description" content="Briefing Package for the QA Activity.">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/base.css" />
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2003/03/site-css/css/1.css" />
|
|
<style type="text/css">
|
|
h1 { clear: left; background: white; color: black }</style>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
<p class="banner"><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" width="72"
|
|
height="48" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home"></a> <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/QA/"><img alt="QA" src="/QA/images/qa"></a></p>
|
|
|
|
<h1>Study of a W3C Certification Activity.</h1>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Editor: <strong>Daniel Dardailler</strong>, W3C.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Date of original release: April 2003.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><em>Note: as of June 2007: W3C hasn't started a Certification
|
|
activity.</em></p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>I. Executive Summary</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>This document is a study of the whereabouts, pros and cons of a
|
|
<strong>W3C Certification activity</strong>. No decision has yet been made
|
|
with regard to starting such an activity. This document still provides a
|
|
basis for discussing options.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><em>Note that even though the term activity is used in this document, it
|
|
doesn't really carry the same formalism attached to the word Activity in the
|
|
<a href="../06/Process-20030618/process.html#Activities">W3C process
|
|
document</a>.</em></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This new activity would be closely integrated with the existing <a
|
|
href="/QA/">W3C QA activity</a> and aims to create and manage a certification
|
|
program for potentially: Web content, Web applications, and Web
|
|
developers.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The <strong>basic premises</strong> behind this program is that:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>W3C <strong>Working Groups</strong> are responsible for releasing
|
|
quality test materials and validator for their specs/formats</li>
|
|
<li>passing a W3C test constitutes an <strong>objective assessment of a
|
|
claim</strong> (i.e. reproduceable test results) but doesn't necessarily
|
|
mean attaining a level of conformance to a spec, only that it passed the
|
|
given test.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>who runs the tests</strong>: the being-certified party (i.e.
|
|
self-certification), a third-party (acting on W3C's behalf) or W3C
|
|
itself, is an important parameter of the system which has to be decided
|
|
early on.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>The benefit foreseen by certification is that this will create a market
|
|
need for <strong>better recognition of quality</strong> of Web resources,
|
|
quality sought by the user community, and that it will therefore improve the
|
|
quality of the Web and the demand of good products by users.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The risks on the other hand are that we spend precious resources on such
|
|
an initiative, for no good result, and worse, that we end up alienating part
|
|
of the industry or the Web community for wanting to play what could be seen
|
|
as a new <strong>police or a commercial role</strong> for the W3C.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>2. Context</h2>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Definitions</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>A <strong>certification</strong> is an <em>acknowledgement</em> by a
|
|
certifying authority (the organism issuing a certificate or branding) that a
|
|
set of criteria has been met.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is different from conformance, which defines an <em>ability</em> to
|
|
meet a set of requirements defined by a specification.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Certification in itself makes no claim about a given specification, and
|
|
its relationship to a specification is <strong>transitive</strong> in nature
|
|
(e.g. a product is certified to pass a set of SVG tests, which themselves
|
|
defines - or not - a level of conformance to the SVG specs).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is an expression of <strong>trust</strong> and therefore a form of
|
|
liability, while a conformance claim is more of a technical assertion.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Whether or not the tests are run by the party seeking certification, by
|
|
W3C, or by a third party acting on its behalf, the <strong>novel</strong>
|
|
idea behind this program is that W3C would <strong>engage</strong> its name
|
|
and brand for things that it hasn't directly produced (e.g. software products
|
|
on the market, Web development agencies).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is therefore very important that a good control over this new W3C
|
|
liability be recognized and properly organized within the W3C and the QA
|
|
activity, involving the membership and the Web community. Given that the cost
|
|
of the branding program itself, i.e. the MarComm around it, wil probably be
|
|
very resource intensive, it is also very important not to underestimate them
|
|
in any future planning.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Current status</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>The <a href="/QA">Quality Assurance (QA) Activity at W3C</a> has a dual
|
|
focus: to solidify and extend current quality practices, and to educate by
|
|
sharing our understanding of coordination, certification, funding, and
|
|
tracking of the quality of products and services related to W3C technologies.
|
|
The mission of the QA Team is to <strong>improve the quality of W3C
|
|
specification implementation in the field</strong>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The QA activity is mainly focused toward the <em>inreach</em>, that is,
|
|
the quality of the W3C own working groups processes and deliverables (e.g.
|
|
specification).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Certification, on the other hand, is partly about <strong>judging</strong>
|
|
the quality of other people's work.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The closest to something resembling today that at W3C is the <a
|
|
href="/Consortium/Process-20010719/process.html#Submission">submission</a>
|
|
process whereby W3C express its opinion on the technical work of its members
|
|
doen outside W3C. This is a limited comparison as it concerns only
|
|
specifications (not products or services) and W3C, when accepting a
|
|
submission, only asserts that the work is <strong>good enough</strong> for
|
|
becoming a W3C note.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>But this constitutes nevertheless some kind of approval stamp we're giving
|
|
to external work that we may want to draw experience from (in terms of
|
|
liability and public reaction, press coverage, etc).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The <a href="/QA/Activity">QA activity proposal</a> mentions certification
|
|
as a <strong>topic</strong> of the QA Interest Group but it is specifically
|
|
marked as <strong>currently</strong><strong>out-of-scope</strong> in the QA
|
|
<a href="/QA/IG/charter.html#Scope">IG charter</a> and as something that
|
|
needs more thinking and shared understanding.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>So if we move forward with that, we do have to <strong>ask our
|
|
membership</strong>, since it's not in any existing activity scope.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>However, in recent W3C meetings (TP March 2003) of the QA chairs, staff,
|
|
but also the AB, and some WGs, it appeared that a successful certification
|
|
program could have the following <strong>benefits</strong>:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>create a market need for quality recognition</li>
|
|
<li>improve the validity of software implementing our specs in a scalable
|
|
way</li>
|
|
<li>improve the awareness for the importance of Web standard</li>
|
|
<li>make more widely known the W3C brand.</li>
|
|
<li>potentially attract new W3C members</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>It was also recognized that there are associated <strong>risks</strong>
|
|
and difficulties attached to such a new endeavor:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>It will be effort demanding for several already overloaded W3C
|
|
constituencies: Management, Comm, QA.</li>
|
|
<li>if started too early with no good QA ts materials to back it up, if may
|
|
be detrimental to the W3C brand instead of reinforcing it.</li>
|
|
<li>If noone is interested in being W3C certified, it will be a complete
|
|
loss of resources, if it is financially successful, it may change the W3C
|
|
mission and role in the face of profit gains..</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>But the potentially high payoff calls for exploring this further and
|
|
propose a plan to the W3C members at some point, once we have reached
|
|
internal consensus on such a plan.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>3. Scope</h2>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Taxonomy of certification</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>We need to study both the different classes of <strong>objects</strong>
|
|
being certified and the different <strong>methods</strong> for certifying
|
|
them.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline">On the objects of
|
|
certification.</span></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The QA activity has released a <a href="/QA/Taxonomy.html">taxonomy of
|
|
test materials</a> which presents various categories of test materials.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Using that list as a starting point, we see three kinds of potential
|
|
certification activities:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>certification of Web content (e.g. site validity, accessibility)</li>
|
|
<li>certification of Software programs (e.g. browsers, authoring tools)</li>
|
|
<li>certification of Service providers (e.g. Web design shops)
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Note: certification of documentation, like HTML books. could fall into
|
|
services, if we consider that the author/editor of the doc is being
|
|
certified. Or it could fall onto products, e.g. a book is a product. Or we
|
|
could have products splitted into programs (products above) and docs.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline">On the certification
|
|
methods.</span></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>At some point, someone <strong>has to run</strong> a series of tests over
|
|
something (the objects above).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>At some other point, the <strong>W3C name</strong> is attached to this
|
|
something as a guarantee that the tests were successful.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Between those two moments, W3C has to make sure its brand is not misused
|
|
or abused.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In decreasing order of "assurance" and "cost for W3C", the tests could be
|
|
run:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>by the W3C staff (high guarantee, high cost)</li>
|
|
<li>by a third party specialized in running tests (good guarantee, high
|
|
management)</li>
|
|
<li>by the party seeking certification (self-certification)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For <strong>each</strong> of these categories of objects and methods, we
|
|
need to examine what a particular certification program would mean (what are
|
|
the nature of the tests being saught and the exact objects of the
|
|
certification, e.g. SVG or WCAG) and could look like (difficulties, existing
|
|
test framework, etc).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See the <a href="#L780">decision matrix</a> below.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The relationship between certification and testing is of course very
|
|
strong, as the first cannot usually be obtained without the availability of
|
|
the second, so it is important to know the <strong>status
|
|
of</strong><strong>test development at W3C</strong> and availibility in each
|
|
category.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Available tests</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>One of the main goals of the QA activity is to have each W3C WG develops
|
|
and being <strong>responsible</strong> for test materials that support their
|
|
technology.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In order to achieve that goal, the W3C QA activity is developing a <a
|
|
href="/TR/qaframe-intro/">framework</a> of operational, specification and
|
|
tests development guidelines for promoting and facilitating these WG quality
|
|
practices.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The <a href="/QA/TheMatrix">QA Matrix</a> lists the current achievement of
|
|
WGs in terms of availibility of validation tools and test suites in their
|
|
area of work.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is a fair statement to say that we're <strong>far from</strong>
|
|
achieving this goal today (of having each WG producing tests of quality), and
|
|
many W3C groups do not have any test for checking either the content or the
|
|
products implementing their specification.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This in itself is an indication that whatever we start now will
|
|
<strong>not be comprehensive</strong> across W3C activities but will have to
|
|
work incrementally over time.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This also means that we may want to wait another year to get better test
|
|
materials available from the WG to embark into certification.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>On the other hand, the QA Matrix shows some promising result that makes it
|
|
<strong>possible</strong> to start such a program given the availibility of
|
|
good validation and test suites programs in some W3C activities.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Let's now examine each potential certification activities in turn.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>4. Certification of Web content</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The tests used in that category are usually called
|
|
<strong>validators</strong> or <strong>evaluation</strong> programs.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The objects of the certification are Web pages or Web sites.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>We already have several test tools for various W3C specifications, like
|
|
the HTML validator or the XML Schema validator.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>W3C even provides <strong>logos</strong> for HTML, CSS and WAI WCAG
|
|
compliance, but this is not a certification approach as it is clearly
|
|
indicated that content providers are solely responsible for the use of our
|
|
logos (it can't even be called self-certification, but more
|
|
self-evaluation).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The real <strong>difficulty</strong> in that category lies not so much in
|
|
the development or the running of the tests but in the
|
|
<strong>amount</strong> of potential things to be tested: the Web itself!</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>If we start a certification program for Web content, one may wonder how
|
|
this can scale, or more to the point, how does the return on investment
|
|
compare to other forms of certification (e.g. authoring tools)?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Maybe the self-evaluation approach we've taken so far is the
|
|
<strong>best</strong> one we can hope to achieve, even it it is sometimes
|
|
abused (Web pages carry our logo without being valid or accessible at the
|
|
level they claim, often for versioning reasons).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A related case of Web content certification program is the notion of <a
|
|
href="/WAI/EO/Drafts/galleryintro.html">gallery</a> of Accessible Web Content
|
|
that the WAI EO group has been working on. This effort already shows the
|
|
range of difficulty associated with Web content related claims per se: need
|
|
for a human liaison responsible for the content, need for tracking the site
|
|
changes (from valid to not valid or the opposite), need for a selection
|
|
process, etc.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>5. Certification of Web applications</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The tests used in that category are usually called <strong>test
|
|
suites</strong>, TS for short.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The objects of the certification are Web applications like <strong>user
|
|
agents</strong> (e.g. browsers), <strong>authoring tools</strong> (e.g. HTML
|
|
editors), or <strong>web servers</strong>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>There is existing market of such certification already for platform
|
|
integration (e.g. <a
|
|
href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/partners/isvs/cfw.mspx">Certified
|
|
for Windows</a>) and one can imagine that a <em>W3C Certified for the Open
|
|
Web</em> (or some such attractive name) program would appeal to the product
|
|
vendors as well.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The issues there lie in the developement of <strong>objective</strong> and
|
|
performant test suites for, in particuliar, authoring tools, which cover one
|
|
of the most important aspect of the certification chain. Indeed, if the tools
|
|
that are used to generate Web content improves, Web Content itself improves
|
|
widely.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Some of our most important specification (e.g. HTML) are also difficult to
|
|
test as their semantics are difficult to define in the specs and are as a
|
|
result sometimes ill-defined (and therefore we do not have good test for
|
|
them).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Each sub-category of tools mentioned above has its own set of specific
|
|
difficulties, both technical and logistics, that each deserve a plan
|
|
description.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>6. Certification of Web developers and services</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The tests used in that category are usually called <strong>exams</strong>,
|
|
or <strong>training</strong> sessions, and are both technical and process
|
|
oriented. They are used to recognize a human or a human structure
|
|
qualification, not a technology like the other two above.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The objects of the certification are people (Web developers), or
|
|
organizations (e.g. Web design agencies).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>We do not have test support for that today at W3C, but we have a some
|
|
expertise in judging the production made by Web designers wrt to applying our
|
|
standards, and we have some good base materials (slides, tutorials).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>There is a large existing market of Certified Engineers for various
|
|
products and systems, and we could create a <em>Certified W3C Designers</em>
|
|
program that follow the same model used today for proprietary systems.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>We would have to create several sets of <strong>educational</strong> and
|
|
<strong>checking</strong> materials and a framework for passing the tests
|
|
(e.g. exams) or/and certifying the quality of the internal process used in
|
|
relationg to Web design.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Another approach would be the development of a <em>Good Web Design
|
|
Practices</em> document that people would agree to comply with (process wise)
|
|
and that we (or a third party on our behalf) could audit on-demand, for a
|
|
fee, much like the ISO9000 way of doing thing.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is potentially as area that can bring a lot of visibility to W3C and
|
|
the importance of standard development work.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2><a name="L780" id="L780">7. Decision matrix</a></h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Here's a matrix that gives some insight on the pros (+) and cons (-) of
|
|
each classes of objects and methods and for each couple, what we should pay
|
|
attention to.</p>
|
|
|
|
<table border="1">
|
|
<caption></caption>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td>
|
|
<table border="0">
|
|
<caption></caption>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td></td>
|
|
<td><em>Object of the tests</em></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><em>Who runs the tests</em></td>
|
|
<td></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td><strong>Web content</strong>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ that's the real thing!</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- too many pages to check</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ can be automatized for things like markup validation</p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td><strong>Software</strong>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ good lever effect for Web content</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- still lots of programs</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- manual testing often required</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td><strong>Providers</strong>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ good level effect as well</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- lots of people!</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ good promotion for W3C brand</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><strong>W3C staff</strong> (potentially with help from Web
|
|
community)
|
|
|
|
<p>+ high quality testing</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ low external coordination costs</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- high running test costs</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ no (re)checking since done by us</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. interesting concept of gallery
|
|
|
|
<p>. do something special for W3C members' pages for visibility?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>. enforce a bit more our markup logo licence, e.g. use automatic
|
|
checking to correct abuse</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. Some WGs (ATAG, SMIL, SVG, etc) have produced self-assess tables
|
|
|
|
<p>- publication of results is a liability, even legally forbiden
|
|
sometimes</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. we could gather our curricula, tutorials, and have more
|
|
developped.
|
|
|
|
<p>. staff could do training for trainers (maximized level)</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><strong>Third party</strong>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ more professional approach</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- require more trust and financial relationship</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>- high startup cost but better long-term business</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ limited checking</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. watch EuroAccessibility program for WCAG certification, which is
|
|
a kind of third party certif for content
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. would need to be trained to our (various) test harness
|
|
|
|
<p>. could do the (spot) checking in the case of
|
|
self-certification</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. could run courses and exams
|
|
|
|
<p>. could check if production of certified providers is ok</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><strong>Companies</strong>
|
|
|
|
<p>- limited trust</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ checking necessary</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>+ low cost of running test for W3C</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. continue to promote self-evaluation with no formal checking (e.g.
|
|
valid HTML logo)
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. need for easily checkable test result (e.g. EARL)
|
|
|
|
<p>. need to handle versioning, multiple technologies (HTML, SVG,
|
|
SMIL, etc)</p>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td>. people could pledge allegeance to a W3C Good practices chart.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>8. Structure of the activity</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>If it is organized as a new W3C Activity, we could create an IG for
|
|
overall discussion and one WG per certification program: one for products,
|
|
one for services, etc.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The initial duration could be 2 years.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>We could start with a workshop to gather more detailed input from the
|
|
certification industry, the Web industry, and the Web community in general
|
|
(e.g. Open Source).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>As for deliverables, the NIST white paper on Certification gives some very
|
|
good input as what they should be, see <a
|
|
href="/QA/2002/01/Note-qa-certif-20020102.html#Products">http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/01/Note-qa-certif-20020102.html#Products</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>9. Resource Statement/Revenue Model</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>At least one more person would be needed to run this thing on the W3C QA
|
|
staff side (difficult to do with just volunteers/Members - need a dedicated
|
|
W3C or some contracted resources).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Eventually, this may become self-financed as product vendors pay for
|
|
certification stamp.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Who would be the customers for these kind of services ?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p><em>@@ Include here a report from the Business Scenario Workshop on
|
|
Certification held in Washington DC on October 25th 2003 (OpenGroup
|
|
conference)</em></p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>10. Liaison and dependencies</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>We already had discussions with some of these groups, and we need more.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><a href="http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/ncsci/primer.htm">NIST</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.opengroup.org/certification/">TheOpenGroup</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.uc-council.org/">UCC</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.veritest.com/">Veritest</a> (running the MS Windows
|
|
certified program), our members doing QA/Certif, Open Source community, ETSI,
|
|
ISO9000, <a
|
|
href="http://public.ansi.org/ansionline/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Links%20Within%20Stories/NCAP.pdf">ANSI</a>,
|
|
etc.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>See this very good paper submitted by NIST to W3C in 2002: <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/01/Note-qa-certif-20020102.html">http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/01/Note-qa-certif-20020102.html</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>And this document as well, on <a
|
|
href="http://www.consortiuminfo.org/cb/">certification, testing and branding
|
|
at ConsortiumInfo.org</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p></p>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
|
|
<div class="disclaimer">
|
|
<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check/referer"><img
|
|
src="http://validator.w3.org/images/vxhtml10" alt="Valid XHTML 1.0!"
|
|
height="31" width="88"></a>
|
|
|
|
<p>Created: April 4th 2003 - by danield</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="policyfooter"><a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html">Copyright</a> ©
|
|
2003-2005 <a href="http://www.w3.org">W3C</a> (<a
|
|
href="http://www.lcs.mit.edu">MIT</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.ercim.org">ERCIM</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>), All Rights Reserved. W3C <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html">liability,</a> <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html">trademark</a>, <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents.html">document
|
|
use</a> and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html">software
|
|
licensing</a> rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance
|
|
with our <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html">public</a>
|
|
and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/privacy-statement.html">Member</a>
|
|
privacy statements.</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|