- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 18:36:10 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
- CC: jbrewer@w3.org
Hello, Based on consensus reached during the 20 January teleconference [1], I propose the following statement of conformance to the User Agent Guidelines. Note that all the hard work lays ahead: establishing two subsets of checkpoints. - Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0071.html -- Conformance The terms "must", "should", and "may" (and related terms) are used in this document in accordance with RFC 2119 ([RFC2119]). This document defines two categories of conformance in order to promote a standard of accessibility within, and interoperability between, two important classes of user agents - graphical desktop browsers and dependent assistive technologies. Desktop graphical user agents To conform to this document, a desktop graphical user agent must: 1.Satisfy all the Priority 1 checkpoints explicitly marked as applying to that class of user agent, and 2.Satisfy those checkpoints natively (i.e., no additional software is required) unless the checkpoint explicitly indicates that it may be satisfied through communication with other software. Even for those checkpoints that must be satisfied natively, desktop graphical user agents should make information available to other software through standard interfaces. Dependent user agents To conform to this document, a dependent user agent must: 1.Satisfy all the Priority 1 checkpoints explicitly marked as applying to that class of user agent. 2.Satisfy those checkpoints natively (i.e., no additional software is required) unless the checkpoint explicitly indicates that it may be satisfied through communication with other software. Verification that a checkpoint has been satisfied lies outside of the scope of this document and the activities of the WAI User Agent Working Group. The checkpoints are expressed in language intended to facilitate verification by other parties. Please note that lack of conformance does not imply lack of accessibility. However, the WAI User Agent Working Group believes that a user agent that conforms to this document is more likely to be accessible than one that does not. The conformance mechanisms defined here reflect the weight that the WAI User Agent Working Group assigns to the Priority 1 checkpoints. However, the Working Group also recommends that user agent developers satisfy as many checkpoints as possible, including Priority 2 and 3 checkpoints.
Received on Friday, 29 January 1999 18:35:52 UTC