W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Baselines: how specific?

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:26:51 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920604200726v3a2c4e6al238e98efbbb3f091@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hi Gregg,

On 20/04/06, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:
<quote>
How about the following

1) A technology or feature isn't in the baseline unless it is named in the
baseline.
2) Baseline 'items' can include technologies, specific features, or well
defined collections.
3) If a collection or general technology is specified in the baseline, the
assumption is that all of its subparts, features, modules etc. are in the
baseline unless excluded in the baseline definition.
4) "embed" could be listed in a baseline definition but is not part of HTML
4.01.

Thoughts on the above?
</quote>

Points 1 to 3 seem sensible. I'm not sure about point 4. For clarity,
"embed" has never been part of any version of HTML or XHTML. Isn't
point 4 covered under point 2? If it is, then shouldn't point 4 be:

4) A baseline item does not have to conform to a public specification,
providing that when the item is supported by user agents, it's used in
a way that conforms to the guidelines.

If so, would we still allow "relied upon" for items that don't conform
to a public specification?

Best regards,

Gez

--
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 14:27:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT