Re: User agent capabilities [was Agenda

Let us clarify this further.
Under implementation, we have, hypothetically, the following fields:
A. Status: one of "not implemented", "rare" (only available on a few
operating systems/user agents), "normal" (available on a variety of
operating systems), "conflicting" (interoperability problems).

B. Natural languages supported by user agents implementing this feature (a
list of language names/codes).

C. Comment: a string field in which to add remarks related to the
implementation of this feature, such as any compatibility problems
involving assistive technologies.

D. Date: estimated date as of which the above information is believed to
be correct.

Wile on the subject of data bases, one might as well suggest other fields
which could be added to create a record structure for the techniques:

A. Relevant checkpoints: a list of checkpoint numbers from WCAG to which
this technique pertains. This field could have a counterpart for WCAG 1.0
if required. B. Description: a string.
C. User Agent Accessibility Guideline dependenceis: a list of related
checkpoints from UAAG.
D. Test algorihtm (optional): a reference to the corresponding item in ER
techniques.
E. Code samples (optional): examples which illustrate the application of
the technique and which, where relevant, may serve as tests.
F. The standards/technologies used in the technique: a list of technology
names, with version numbers if applicable (e.g., SVG 1.0, CSS 2, XSL 1.0).
G. The implementation record as defined above.
H. Extended description/explanation: a string field.

Various checklists, techniques documents etc. could be generated by
retrieving only a selected portion of these fields and sorting the
techniques in various ways (by technology, by implementation status,
etc.).

Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 18:15:03 UTC