On (22/05/06 11:38), Greg Folkert wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 03:32 -0700, formless void wrote: > > I finally found that W3C has got > > > > User Agent Accessibility Guidelines at > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/ > > > > Now my question is how authenticative W3C is? > > What do you mean by "authenticative"? Do you mean au?thor?i?ta?tive? > > au?thor?i?ta?tive > adjective > 1. Having or arising from authority; official: an > authoritative decree; authoritative sources. > 2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: > an authoritative account of the revolution. > 3. Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's > authoritative manner. > > If that is what you meant, then my answer is, W3C *is the authority* on > the subject of the useragent. But being the authority on any subject > doesn't mean anyone pays attention to you or your organization. It is > voluntary compliance. > > > Why am I asking this? Because, setting up a standard is one thing and > > getting vendors to implement is another. > > See Voluntary Compliance. > > > It seems to me that the standard has been there for 4 years and no > > browser has implemented it so far, as I can find no where within the > > major browsers (such as IE, Netscape or Firefox) saying that the > > accessibility of the browser is w3c compliant. > > Have you even looked at Firefox's Mozilla website? > > http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ > > Accessibility > Firefox 1.5 delivers easier navigation for everyone, > including those who are visually or motor-impaired. > Firefox is the first browser to support DHTML > accessibility, which, when enabled by Web authors, > allows rich Web applications to be read aloud. Users may > navigate with keystrokes rather than mouse clicks, > reducing the tabbing required to navigate documents such > as spreadsheets. Firefox 1.5 (Windows version) is also > the first browser to meet US Federal Government > Requirements (http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/vpat.html) > that software be easily accessible to users with > physical impairments. > > > > Another issue concerns me is that the w3c guideline only addresses the > > accessibility issue and not enough on User Agent security - Section > > 1.5 only. Where I can find security standards of the web browser? > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/guidelines.html#tech-ui-access-api > > 1. For security reasons, user agents are not required to allow > instructions in content to modify user agent user interface > controls. > > Also Note, that this is a guideline. (guidelines.html) which mean it is > intended to steer, not define the APIs used in security considerations. > > Also note that, you can program in a 100% sandbox environment and still > produce insecure code. It is a matter of understanding the implications > of your code and programming for security from the get go. Most software > in general that started as a "pet project" did not start with the proper > footing in secure programming. > > When I say secure, I don't mean secure like Bank Vault Secure, but > secure as in "Does what it is supposed to with out allowing stack > overruns or improper handling of types to allow leaks, etc..." > > So, if *YOU* need a secure implementation of a Browser with User Ageent > Security Cranked way up... well, I suggest you start with a clean sheet, > any of the existing code bases you have to work with in the way of > web-browsers are far to buggy for them to be fixed, without a 100% > re-factoring, linting, unit-testing with peer-review re-do. That ain't > gonna happen unless YOU do it. > > > It is perfectly fine, if the vendors are unable to achieve the > > security of the browser at the same time with the accessibility, and > > rely on the third party software to make compliment it. > > No, the core of the browser needs to implement good programming methods > to not allow the exploits like IE has in it. > > > But the standard level has to be differentiated and indicated clearly > > either using logo or code, what ever. > > The sheeple (sheeple == average US citizen that complains about politics > but does nothing to improve the situation ala voting or writing) of > windows users don't care about that. All they want is blinky lights and > toolbars that work with the "game-site" or "porn-site" of choice. > > Do like Microsoft has, find an imperfection in the finish, layer some > bondo on it... prime it then try to match the color around the problem > so nobody notices. If that doesn't work, repaint the whole-thing again > adding a few more blinky lights, maybe a few "Pimped" things like DRM > and TCE... and re-release it as the next completely redesigned version. > (WindowsXP ala Windows Vista) All without even addressing Standards > other than the proprietary ones they have created. > -- > greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The technology that is > Stronger, Better, Faster: Linux > > Use Debian GNU/Linux, its a bazaar thing > > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the > National Security Agency may have read this email > without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly > without probable cause. They may do this without > any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no > recourse nor protection.
Great answer! Regards Clive -- www.clivemenzies.co.uk ... ...strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
