W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Conformance evaluations of IBM Home Page Reader

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:11:39 -0400
Message-ID: <37C7293B.90D36645@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
CC: claws@us.ibm.com, Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, thatch@us.ibm.com, pjenkins@us.ibm.com, schwer@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> I wold have thought that whatever totoal solution you used was what covered
> the claim. For example "MyBrowser, and Theirbrowser, and ThisScreenReader,
> and ThatScreenReader, and TheOtherBrailleDevice, as a collection of tools"
> conform at level ....

From the 9 August draft [1]:

<BLOCKQUOTE>
  In order to conform as a graphical desktop browser, 
  the user agent must satisfy all the checkpoints (for a
  chosen conformance level) that apply to graphical desktop 
  browsers and do so natively. 
</BLOCKQUOTE>

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/#conformance

That's the only way to conform as a desktop graphical browser 
(according to the spec). The same applies to dependent UAs.

In January we considered this (refer to Option 3 of [1]):

<BLOCKQUOTE>
       b.ii) UAs must also satisfy the applicable Priority 1 
             checkpoints natively or be able to demonstrate
             that, in conjunction with readily available 
             products, the checkpoints are satisfied. 
</BLOCKQUOTE>

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0017.html

The Working Group did not elect to pursue this option.

   - Ian
Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 20:11:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC