FW: UA applicability

 Forwarding with Susan's agreement a mail exchange we had at the end of last
week.



Susan's message:

> The recasting of the question seems perfect to me. It would seem to 
> allow us to focus on exceptions that arise with each tracked UA.
> 
> Working under the assumption that we're not going to publish a 
> technique that isn't applicable (or at least non-toxic) to the 
> majority of mainstream UAs, I wonder about some rework to the ideas in 
> the following
> paragraph:
> 
> -- If the technique is applicable to a base version of a user agent 
> the name of that user agent will appear immediately below the summary 
> of the technique. If the technique is not applicable, the name will 
> appear crossed out. If the name does not appear at all, this signifies 
> that further investigation is needed. If the technique is applicable 
> to a later version than the chosen base version, this will be 
> indicated by adding the version number to the name. --
> 
> Is this possibly too black and white? Perhaps rather than "the 
> technique is not applicable" and crossing it out, we could have some 
> standard language after each technique re:
> this technique is applicable to base and current UAs with the 
> following exceptions.. and then list the UAs with issues.
> 
> As a reader, if the document says upfront that the technique has been 
> tested on a list of UAs, I assume it's applicable unless told 
> otherwise.
> For this reason the "no name = further investigation" bothers me.  If 
> there is a UA that requires further investigation, I'd rather that be 
> specifically stated along with the exceptions.
> 
> cheers.
> susan


My response on Friday: 

Many thanks for this. We are both thinking along the same lines.  I just
uploaded a version of the document I developed yesterday, with some
additional editing to the explanatory section today after getting your note:


http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-lang.html#ri20030912.1446
34229

Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 11:13:47 UTC