W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Access Key alternative -in the wrong place? - nit picking

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:26:04 +0300
To: 'Richard Schwerdtfeger' <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: 'Lisa Seeman' <lisa@ubaccess.com>, 'Becky Gibson' <gibsonb@us.ibm.com>, 'Jon Gunderson' <jongund@uiuc.edu>, 'Liddy Nevile' <Liddy.Nevile@motile.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Message-id: <001101c467f2$44573910$340aa8c0@lisaibm>
 

Rich:  Also, we already have role so why are you now inserting
contenttype. Lets be consistent. I am not going to go back to the HTML
working group to do a name change for role. 

[Lisa: ] 



In the email snippet you forwarded us I content type in an example for
DC metadata as a brainstorm type thing, where by the html would not need
a role for links - (that is why I cc'ed Liddy to see if there was an
existing dc tag name for the same concept.)   I do not think the DC tag
is  related or controlled by the XHTML specification.
 
Maybe what you are referring to is my response to a different email of
Becky's which was a proposal from you and her together  for a new XHTML
attribute called "access" for replacing access keys using what I had
been calling until then contentType, in the access key proposal to PF.
In response to that I  wrote:
 
<quote> I would suggest something more descriptive the the term
"access"- such as role, or  type. Swap uses the term  ContentType . Then
it is more likely to be used by people who don't care about
accessibility, but want to use it for a different application, such as
what Microsoft are doing for RSS feeds on a page. If people are using it
for different applications and provide state of the art accessibility as
a by product - that is a big win in my book. </quote> I then continued
using ContentTypes in my examples.

Was that the problem?
 
Keep well
Lisa
 
 

E.g. page level in meta data like
<meta name= pageType content="UB:siteMap">

(sorry Liddy - i havn't looked up how to do this legally)
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 05:34:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC