- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 11:34:41 +1100
- To: "John Slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Cc: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
John Slatin writes: > > Here's a slight reworking that does little more than simplify the syntax: > == John's reworking of Jason's text== This is good. My original wording wasn't, in any case, intended as a proposal for inclusion in a draft but only as initial text for the purposes of mailing list discussion. > > Questions: > What does "interoperable" mean in the sentence "There exist multiple, > independent, and interoperable implementations of the technologies used by > the content"? I don't know whether the W3C has a standard definition of the term, but essentially it means that there are no problems of conformance of the different implementations to the specification that would give rise to compatibility problems. > > Does content meet 5.2 if it works in Internet Explorer on both Windows and > Macintosh but not in Netscape/Mozilla? 5.2 is concerned with the technologies used by the content, not with the content itself. Thus the question at level 2, as currently proposed, is not whether the content "works" with different implementations, but whether it uses technologies that are supported by multiple implementations. If content used technologies in such a way that it would only "work" with one implementation then it wouldn't meet the proposed level 2 success criterion. What is excluded is the situation in which the content is functional only with implementation x, whatever it may be.
Received on Sunday, 29 December 2002 00:26:39 UTC