- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 01:03:52 -0500 (EST)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
William,
I don't think we have any great liability. We are making available some
reviews of publicly available tools according to a public specification, done
by individuals. We describe the status of each evaluation, and of the process
that is used, in such a way that people can reproduce the tests. This is
important in enabling the public and developers to criticise, improve on, and
understand the individual tests, and can only be achieved by very precisely
stating what is tested - not just names, but version numbers, the version of
the document that it is being reviewed against, etc.
The reviews are not a forum for haranguing developers, they are an
informative aid to the public who are seeking further help in using the
specification.
Charles McCN
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, William Loughborough wrote:
CMcCN:: "...the working group has a page which describes the conformance
of various tools at XXX."
WL: If we're going to "name names" I feel we are treading treacherous
slippery slope. I don't think the intent of our charter is to provide
lists (necessarily incomplete) of conforming/non-conforming tools.
Unless the makers of the tools request inclusion our liability is
evident and unless we find *every* tool our neglect is unfair to some
perhaps unknown excellence. We can describe problems in current
(unnamed) products and point out satisfactory compliances - with
anonymity.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
--Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 01:03:54 UTC