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

Re: lynx

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:30:39 -0500
Message-ID: <3A10091F.5726C3FD@w3.org>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT