Re: Summary discussion and proposed actions for checkpoints with low implementation experience

Jim Ley wrote:
> "Jon Gunderson" <[email protected]>
> 
>>I have published a document summarizing the list discussion on the
>>checkpoints with low implementation experience[1].  Please review the
> 
> list
> 
>>and send comments before today's meeting.
> 
> 
> 5.7 is implemented in "hybrid UA's" such as browser+proximitron, or my
> own Snufkin.  Whilst this is perhaps not sufficient it does show that it
> is pretty workable.

This is a good opportunity to remind everyone that
the approach taken by UAAG 1.0 is that combinations
of software can conform. The conformance claim indicates
what pieces work together to satisfy the various requirements.

So the combinations you cite do help us in our effort to
show implementability.

We welcome additional reports of how products working
together satisfy the checkpoints.

Thank you,

  _ Ian




-- 
Ian Jacobs ([email protected])   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447