W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Proposed Rewording for Checkpoints 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4 (resend)

From: gregory j. rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:44:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: Authoring Tools WG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
cc: Unagi San <unagi69@concentric.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.990603151816.7603A-100000@ns.hicom.net>
aloha, all!

in fulfillment of one of the action items i took at yesterday's
teleconference, here is my proposed rewording for the Checkpoints
currently numbered 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.1.4

four notes:

1) the basis for the rewording of these checkpoints is the working draft
of 27 may 1999, which was the draft being discussed at the 2 june
teleconference, and which can be found at:
in the latest working draft, however, these checkpoints are enumerated
as follows: 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.1.4, and since this draft,
is the current working draft, i have used the numbering scheme utilized in
the 2 june 1999 version, posted by charles this morning

2) optional--but in my view, essential--verbiage is enclosed in
curly-brackets (i.e. these things: {})

3) i attempted to send this out yesterday, shortly after the
teleconference ended, but due to connectivity problems with my local
service provider, wasn't able to establish a viable connection until
today...  consequently, i ask that anyone responding to this proposal
on-list also Cc their post to the following eddress:

4) as an illustration of the last note, due to the insanely long lag-times
i've been experiencing when i telnet to the shell account through which i
am subscribed to the AU mailing list, i inadvertently sent out an
incomplete version of this post earlier this afternoon...  please discard
my earlier post, archived as

i apologize for any inconvenience the inadvertent posting may have

--- begin proposed rewording of Checkpoints 2.1.2 through 2.1.4 ---
2.1.2: [Priority 1]
The author must be able to change the rendered view of the document 
currently being edited without changing the presentational markup defined
for the published document. 

- OR -

The author must be able to change the editing view without changing the
presentational markup defined for the document currently being edited.

2.1.3: [Priority 1] 
Allow the author to display a textual equivalent of each element or object.

2.1.4: [Priority 1] 
For each element of a document, the properties of that element must be
accessible to the author. 

--- end proposed rewording of Checkpoints 2.1.2 through 2.1.4

i have a few, more verbose, iterations of the checkpoint currently known
as 2.1.2, but i think the one included here is strongest, due in no small
part, to its terseness...   as for william's observation, contained in
perhaps we do need to define exactly what is meant by the terms "rendered
view" and "editing view", if we do, indeed, decide to use them...

to this end, i submit the following, admittedly clunky, definitions:

"editing view"
	What is displayed by the authoring tool to the author during
	the editing process.

"rendered view"
	What is displayed by the authoring tool to the author as a 
	means of simulating how a user of the document being 
	edited will interact with the document currently being edited as a
	published document.


                Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
  Camera Obscura:           http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
  VICUG NYC:          http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html
  Read 'Em & Speak:   http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html
Received on Thursday, 3 June 1999 15:50:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC