W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2002

[w3c-wai-gl] <none>

From: Lee Roberts <uce@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 06:59:29 -0500
To: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NFBBJHFEOLAGEICMIMBPCECGCHAA.uce@roserockdesign.com>
Part 1 of the recommendation leaves us with people
that could say they are supporting two versions of
the same user agent. I would recommend that we add
something that strengthens the thought that the
user agents must be from different vendors using
different engines. Definitely we don't want people
that say well it works in IE 5.5 and Jaw 3, which
both use IE as the engine.

Part 2 of the recommended success criteria still
leaves us with developers that program for IE or
developers that want to be so backward compatible
that they will develop so everything works in
Netscape 4.x. I'm still inclined to go with the
"one version prior to the current version" because
as we move forward in versions like Netscape 7 and
Opera 7, due out this Autumn, and IE 7, due out
early next year, we will find that the success
criteria will call for more standards compliance
and require the developers to meet those

As more user agents begin to support the
standards, the Internet will become a better place
and developers will have to comply with the
standards. If we leave it open so that they can
fall back on well IE 5.5 or Netscape 4.7 is still
within the three year period there will be more
problems as time goes by and become more costly to
the organization trying to be compliant.

Since, for example, Netscape 7's previous version
would be Netscape 6 there would be no question as
to which version Netscape 6 or Netscape 4.7 would
be the previous version.

I do concur witht the idea that we should require
at least two user agents. I'm just concerned that
with the broad term of user agents we are limiting
what will be used for the baseline. As I mentioned
the problem with IE being the engine for many user
agents. Now, if JAWS and the other user agents
were developed using a standards compliant engine
like Mozilla everyone would be better off and
accessibility would become an easier task to
achieve for the higher success levels.

Just my two cents.

Lee Roberts
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
Building web sites accessible by EVERYONE

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:45 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Checkpoint 5.2, level 2 success criteria

Part of the working group's consensus on
checkpoint 5.2 was that
success criteria would be drafted at level 2,
specifying a stronger
backward compatibility requirement. Here is my
first attempt,
reflecting ideas that have been raised previously
on the mailing list
and at teleconferences.
You will have successfully met checkpoint 5.2 at
level 2 if
1. The technologies and features below the
baseline have
been independently implemented in at least two
user agents.
2. At least two such implementations have been
available to the public
for a period of three years or more, and have been
localized to
support the primary natural language of the
Have I omitted anything important?
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2002 08:00:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC