Re: [last call, S2] support deprecated format features

Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> [checkpoint 6.2, where it says]
>                  ... For reasons of backward compatibility, user agents
>           should continue to [410]implement deprecated features of
>           specifications. Information about deprecated language features
>           is generally part of the language's specification.
> 
> This is a substantive requirement and one that matters.  Does not belong in a
> Note.

Just to be clear: if support for deprecated features of language X
is not required for conformance to the X specification, then we are
asking
for more than what 6.2 is requiring today.

Question: Is this a requirement that affects users with disabilities
in particular? I suspect you will say yes.

 - Ian
 
> Al
> --
> Usage in headers.  Comments in response to the last call request for comments
> have been classified S1, S2, or E based on the following rough scale:
> 
> S1: Substantive matter of the first (highest) criticality or importance to the
> mission of the document.  The standard set is ineffective, the document is
> self
> contradictory, etc.
> 
> S2: Substantive matter of a somewhat lower criticality.  The document is hard
> to comprehend, does not align well with related WAI documents, etc.
> 
> E: Editorial matters.  Not regarded as substantive.
> 
> Re:
> 
> User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
> 
> W3C Working Draft 23 October 2000
> 
>    This version:
> 
> [9]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/W
> D-UAAG10-20001023

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 11:15:56 UTC