- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:52:49 -0400
- To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
- CC: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote: > > Date: 9 August 2000 > To: UAAG List > From: Eric Hansen > Re: "Checkpoint applicability", "Native support", etc. > > ==== > > Suggestion 4: Seriously consider removing all references to the term > "natively". > > I think that there is no reason to refer to the concept of "natively" in the > document. The term rightly does not appear in any checkpoint. I think that > the word natively is a "leftover" from a time when it was not clear whether > we were considering each user agent _in isolation_ or with other user > agents. We determined (rightly, I think) that we needed to consider each > user agent in isolation. To focus people's attention on the term is > confusing and unnecessary. I don't agree. The issue was raised, even in Proposed Recommendation, whether adoption of operating system features by the user agent would allow for conformance. This is captured in the definition of native support. Two changes would be necessary to get rid of the definition: 1) Move the part about adoption of OS features to the section on conformance. 2) Change the conformance provisions (as described by Charles [1]) to allow conformance with the proper scoping (this piece of software version 2 with that piece of software version 3). For a long time, we have avoided conformance provisions that would create dependencies between vendors. I think, however, that I agree with Charles that it would be fine to allow conformance claims that involved several pieces of software as long as the combination was identified in the claim. I want to avoid requiring conformance by software in tandem, but I don't see any reason to prevent conformance by software in tandem. A claim is a claim. - Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0223.html P.S. For some reason, I think I used to want to prevent this situation of allowing conformance by software in tandem, but this morning I can't remember why! I looked back at the summary of conformance issues [2] and couldn't find any evidence. [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0433.html -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 11:54:05 UTC