- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:01:51 +0100
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> However, shouldn't Lynx implement the accessibility features > of HTML like other browsers? As for the DOM requirements, the > WG has reinforced their presence in the document several occasions. I gather that for HTML, compliance cannot be asserted to an older version of the language, e.g. to HTML 3.2 ? For DOM, since lynx is closer to a command line filter than it is to a real interactive application, the connection to DOM is dubious. Could a couple [lynx + some separate libDOM] meets the checkpoint ? In which case, since a libDOM exists somewhere one click away from the lynx download page, this would just be a packaging issue.
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 09:01:57 UTC