- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:25:55 -0400
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote: > > 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. Yes, I agree that there might be several ways to skin cats in the pursuit of the goal of identifying when one has satisfied a checkpoint. Where possible, we should identify a minimal requirement. Otherwise, giving a sample and readily achievable technique is a good idea. > 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. Thank you for these suggestions, Al. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Saturday, 22 April 2000 14:26:11 UTC