Re: move proposed SC to GL 1.3?

Unfortuneately, I can't answer most of your questions - help from someone more knowledgeable in these 
technologies? 


----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: move proposed SC to GL 1.3?

> 
> > Also, can anyone think of better wording than "programmatically 
> determined" 
> > for this notification requirement?
> >
> > <proposal>
> > Changes to content,
> 
> Does this include items like :hover and :focus?
> 
> > structure,
> 
> Does this include document.write?
> 
> > selection,
> 
> How many things can you the site visitor "select" apart from more 
> than one 
> item in a <select> area? Surely you don't mean that if I drag my 
> mouse 
> through a few lines of text, somehow the compliant device must be 
> informed 
> of that?
> 
> > focus,
> 
> That seem strictly user-agent. I can style an item to have :focus 
> events 
> and I rely on the browser to determine when the visitor has 
> actually given 
> focus.
> 
> > attributes, values, state,
> 
> What do these mean, especially "state"? (a:link:visited?) Does this 
> also 
> include document.write?
> 
> > and relationships within the content can be programmatically 
> determined.
> I continue to caution the Working Group against this terminology, 
> which 
> indicates a poor understanding of HTML. You really can't mark up 
> "relationships" with anything other than <a>, <link>, <area>, or 
> <map> 
> elements. (People are doing really good things with the rel 
> attribute 
> these days, by the way.)
> 
> How would I map the relationship between, say, a <sup> element and 
> a <dd> 
> element?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
>     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
>       --This.
>       --What's wrong with top-posting?
> 
>

Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 03:23:09 UTC