W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > June 2006

Re: [WICD] focusable child elements / Action-383

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:37:54 +0200
To: public-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tbvh9ghn64w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:40:27 +0200, Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>  
>> So I agree it would be if all UAs followed the same model and I hope  
>> they do so for the majority of the cases, but we shouldn't prevent UAs  
>> from coming up with alternative (default) UIs if they so desire. I  
>> guess a RFC 2119 SHOULD would cover that, but I'm not entirely sure.
> I would be fine, changing it to:
> 6.1
> "Child elements should be treated like bitmap images, and should, by  
> default, not be focusable."

So this wording implies that bitmap images can be focusable, but SVG  
images should not be focusable. That doesn't seem correct. I guess  
something like the following might work, but it's unclear to me what would  
be in the list:

     SVG images should not be focusable unless they
     contain one of the following:

      * ...
      * ...

>>> With this, authors can make use of bitmap images and non interactive  
>>> SVG elements, purely for style purposes. Without bringing down the  
>>> usability of their documents at the same time.
>>> Agents may, of course, provide an alternative rendering mode, in which  
>>> also non interactive SVG elements become focusable. But this should  
>>> then probably also include bitmap images. (Btw, this is meant by  
>>> "child elements must be treated like bitmap images". Not sure if this  
>>> answers your question.)
>> The problem I have with "child elements must be treated like bitmap  
>> images" is that it seems to assume some default treatment for bitmap  
>> images that isn't really clear from the text.
> No, it should be read as "Whatever the default behavior is, for bitmap  
> images, treat scalable child elements the same. Except, there are  
> specific reasons to treat them differently."

I don't really get this text.

> Let's try to bring this to conclusion quickly. If you think the text  
> needs other changes, then please provide alternative wording.

See above.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 20:38:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:21 UTC