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

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:
	<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOL-19990527.html>
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,
	http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOL-19990602.html,
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:
	<unagi69@concentric.net>

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
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0314.html>

i apologize for any inconvenience the inadvertent posting may have
caused...


--- 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
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0316.html>,
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.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------
                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