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

13 November 2000 Implementation report available

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:15:02 -0500
Message-ID: <3A10A026.D98486B9@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

I've published the 13 November version of the UAAG 1.0
implementation report [1]. This contains some information
that was provided by the Working Group since the 1 November
draft [2]. Some suggestions were not included because they
didn't include specific enough information (version, platform,
evidence of claim).

Some of the information in this version may still be inaccurate
or false. Some of the information is out-of-date because we
changed the checkpoints over the last six months, and the
more specific requirements may not be addressed, whereas the
more general requirements of the Proposed Recommendation may
have been met.

Here are most of the checkpoints where additional implementation
information is required: 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7,
4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 5.6, 5.8, 7.6, 7.7,
8.3, 8.6, 8.9, 8.10, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.8, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.5.

As you can read, at least 34 checkpoints out of 82 require 
additional documentation of implementation experience.

Notes: 

  - If we have sufficient implementation experience, we can ask
    the Director to advance the document straight to Proposed
    Recommendation.

  - Some implementation data may be Team-confidential and will
    not appear in the implementation report.

  - In making our case to the Director, I think there will be
    several categories of checkpoints and varying degrees of
    expectations about how much implementation experience is
    required. For instance:

    a) Checkpoints where implementation experience is gained by
       virtue of the W3C Process. For instance, if we make a DOM
       requirement, the fact that there is a DOM Recommendation
       means that that WG has already gotten sufficient implementation
       experience and we can (possibly) "reuse" that. 

    b) Checkpoints where we probably don't need implementation
       experience, though it would still be good. For instance,
       requirements that documentation conform to WCAG 1.0. I think
       that if some product doesn't yet conform to WCAG but we are
       comfortable with WCAG, then we should not have to wait until
       a user agent's documentation conforms. Even though that would
       be great!

    c) Technical and functional requirements. These, I think, are the
       ones where implementation is crucial.

    d) Observation of system conventions. Since that's outside of
       this document, how much is expected of us?


  - Of course, the more implementation experience we have for
    user agents targetted by this document, the better. There may
    be software that meets some of the requirements but is not
    meant to conform. That's ok, but not as good as a mainstream
    graphical user agent or media player meeting the requirements.

 _ Ian


[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-IMP-20001113/
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-IMP-20001101
-- 
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 21:15:03 GMT

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