Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for...

Gregory J. Woodhouse (gjw@wnetc.com)
Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:50:33 -0800 (PST)


Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:50:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
To: Jonsm@aol.com
Cc: www-html@www10.w3.org, ericgauthier <eric@gauthier.centre.edu>
Subject: Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for...
In-Reply-To: <960212174426_320098246@emout10.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SGI.3.91.960212164625.8886A-100000@shellx.best.com>

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 Jonsm@aol.com wrote:

> 4) Extended HTML2  -  tables and extensions common to several browsers. A
> general rule could be that the extension must exist in at least four
> browsers.
>

I think you're stacking the deck a bit here, seeing as Netscape and 
Internet Assistant are the two browsers which support extensive extensions.
 
> 5) Vendor specific - pages that will only work on specific browsers (frames,
> Java, VBScript, etc..)
> 
> Vendors will need to provide a DTD to validate against. A page that is
> lexicalyl correct yet fails 2-5 would be vendor specific where the vendor is
> unknown.
>

How do you distinguish between vendor specific features and extenvions 
included in 4 above? Is it the provision (or not) of a DTD?
 
> Sites that generate multiple pages based on the User-Agent field could get
> more than one rating.
> 
> Jon Smir, jonsm@aol.com
> 

---
Gregory Woodhouse     gjw@wnetc.com
home page:            http://www.wnetc.com/
resource page:        http://www.wnetc.com/resource/