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

Re: 5.2

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 11:34:41 +1100
Message-ID: <15886.17185.149224.39763@jdc.local>
To: "John Slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Cc: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

John Slatin writes:
 > 
 > Here's a slight reworking that does little more than simplify the syntax:
 > == John's reworking of Jason's text==

This is good. My original wording wasn't, in any case, intended as a
  proposal for inclusion in a draft but only as initial text for
  the purposes of mailing list discussion.
 > 
 > Questions:
 > What does "interoperable" mean in the sentence "There exist multiple,
 > independent, and interoperable implementations of the technologies used by
 > the content"?

I don't know whether the W3C has a standard definition of the term,
but essentially it means that there are no problems of conformance of
the different implementations to the specification that would give
rise to compatibility problems.
 > 
 > Does content meet 5.2 if it works in Internet Explorer on both Windows and
 > Macintosh but not in Netscape/Mozilla?

5.2 is concerned with the technologies used by the content, not with
  the content itself. Thus the question at level 2, as currently
  proposed, is not whether the content
  "works" with different implementations, but whether it uses
  technologies that are supported by multiple implementations. If
  content used technologies in such a way that it would only "work"
  with one implementation then it wouldn't meet the proposed level 2
  success criterion. What is excluded is the situation in which the
  content is functional only with implementation x, whatever it may
  be.
Received on Sunday, 29 December 2002 00:26:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT