Re: [Proposal] New Guideline 6 checkpoints (APIs, Infoset, DOM)

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> By and large i like this. The only reservation I have on re-reading it (this
> doesn't represent a changed part of the checkpoints is whether the note for
> checkpoint 6.9 (was a note on checkpoint 6.8 in the old version) means that a
> partial or partially invalid implementation of CSS can claim that the
> checkpoint is not applicable.

In UAAG 1.0 we use "conform to" and "implement" carefully. In
general, our "conform to" checkpoints are P2 and our "implement"
checkpoints are P1.

I think that UAAG 1.0 is not going to be able to solve the general
problem of determining whether entity E conforms to spec S.

But yes, conformance is required.

  _ Ian


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