- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:30:39 -0500
- To: dd@w3.org
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Daniel Dardailler wrote: > > > However, shouldn't Lynx implement the accessibility features > > of HTML like other browsers? As for the DOM requirements, the > > WG has reinforced their presence in the document several occasions. > > I gather that for HTML, compliance cannot be asserted to an older > version of the language, e.g. to HTML 3.2 ? Yes, it can. We don't have a requirement (only a suggestion) to use the latest version of a spec. > For DOM, since lynx is closer to a command line filter than it is to a > real interactive application, the connection to DOM is dubious. > > Could a couple [lynx + some separate libDOM] meets the checkpoint ? Yes. Conformance for composites ok! > In which case, since a libDOM exists somewhere one click away from the > lynx download page, this would just be a packaging issue. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 10:30:41 UTC