- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:11:39 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: claws@us.ibm.com, Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, thatch@us.ibm.com, pjenkins@us.ibm.com, schwer@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> I wold have thought that whatever totoal solution you used was what covered
> the claim. For example "MyBrowser, and Theirbrowser, and ThisScreenReader,
> and ThatScreenReader, and TheOtherBrailleDevice, as a collection of tools"
> conform at level ....
From the 9 August draft [1]:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
In order to conform as a graphical desktop browser,
the user agent must satisfy all the checkpoints (for a
chosen conformance level) that apply to graphical desktop
browsers and do so natively.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/#conformance
That's the only way to conform as a desktop graphical browser
(according to the spec). The same applies to dependent UAs.
In January we considered this (refer to Option 3 of [1]):
<BLOCKQUOTE>
b.ii) UAs must also satisfy the applicable Priority 1
checkpoints natively or be able to demonstrate
that, in conjunction with readily available
products, the checkpoints are satisfied.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0017.html
The Working Group did not elect to pursue this option.
- Ian
Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 20:11:48 UTC