[wdmaudiodev] Re: WHQL testing
- From: Tim Roberts <timr@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:17:17 -0700
Matthew van Eerde wrote:
>
> It is correct that devices that are submitted through the unclassified
> submission cannot use WLP artwork. But my understanding is that the
> unclassified program is only for devices that do not fall under any of
> the more specific categories.
>
Literally, you are correct, that's what it says (and that is a
relatively recent addition). However, I don't think that's really what
they meant to say, and they are not enforcing what it literally says.
To be perfectly frank, I don't see how they could legitimately do so.
That would mean, for example, that it was completely impossible to get a
WHQL signature on a non-WaveRT audio driver, or a non-UVC USB video device.
There are many devices that "fit" the categories but do not meet the
logo requirements. I can understand denying the logo. I cannot
understand denying a WHQL signature altogether.
As evidence, we did get an unclassified WHQL signature on a non-UVC USB
video camera in January 2011, when this paragraph was already in effect.
--
Tim Roberts, timr@xxxxxxxxx
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Other related posts:
