- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:27:43 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
In many areas, there are many ways to skin a [particular guideline] cat and it is hard to choose among them as to one which should be called "minimum." Calling something a "minimum implemention" will lead people to infer that _all_ implementations must do _at least_ that, i.e. they all must do it. An alternate model is that offered by, for example, the "reference design" of a cell phone done by the Trace Center as part of the Section 255 process <http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/phones>. Here the message is not "This is the minimum you must do," but rather "See, it is indeed readily achievable because you _could_ do it like this." The Working Group would have to convince itself that the example offered is indeed conforming. But the User Agent itself is not required to support this technique to be conforming. It can elect another approach which meets the performance requirement stated in the guideline. For guidelines where the language "minimum implementation" makes us struggle, the working group should feel free to drop back and identify an "example conforming implementation" which is felt to be readily achievable. Certainly in the case of Guideline 2.1, the idea of a property sheet for the current object is something that seems easy to do, and seems to satisfy the guideline. But I would find it hard to call it a "minimum implementation" because I don't feel it is a univerally-required function where the UA implements something better. Al
Received on Saturday, 22 April 2000 14:23:20 UTC