- 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