W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Conformance [Was Re: "Checkpoint applicability", "Native support", etc.]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:52:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3992CFD1.45164E33@w3.org>
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
CC: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> Date: 9 August 2000
> To: UAAG List
> From: Eric Hansen
> Re: "Checkpoint applicability", "Native support", etc.
> 

> ====
> 
> Suggestion 4: Seriously consider removing all references to the term
> "natively".
> 
> I think that there is no reason to refer to the concept of "natively" in the
> document. The term rightly does not appear in any checkpoint. I think that
> the word natively is a "leftover" from a time when it was not clear whether
> we were considering each user agent _in isolation_ or with other user
> agents. We determined (rightly, I think) that we needed to consider each
> user agent in isolation. To focus people's attention on the term is
> confusing and unnecessary.

I don't agree. The issue was raised, even in Proposed Recommendation,
whether adoption of operating system features by the user agent would
allow for conformance. This is captured in the definition of
native support. Two changes would be necessary to get rid of the
definition:

1) Move the part about adoption of OS features to the section on
conformance.
2) Change the conformance provisions (as described by Charles [1]) to
   allow conformance with the proper scoping (this piece of software
version
   2 with that piece of software version 3). 

For a long time, we have avoided conformance provisions that would
create
dependencies between vendors. I think, however, that I agree with
Charles
that it would be fine to allow conformance claims that involved several
pieces of software as long as the combination was identified in the
claim.
I want to avoid requiring conformance by software in tandem, but I don't
see any reason to prevent conformance by software in tandem. A claim is
a claim. 

 - Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0223.html

P.S. For some reason, I think I used to want to prevent this situation
of allowing conformance by software in tandem, but this morning I can't
remember why! I looked back at the summary of conformance issues [2] and
couldn't find any evidence.

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0433.html

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 11:54:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT