W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: Bug 1649 Definition of "Programmatic Reference"

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:30:21 -0800
Message-ID: <53744A0A1D995C459E975F971E17F5643AA15A@namail4.corp.adobe.com>
To: "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>, "Christophe Strobbe" <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>

> "After all, web content is 'hypertext' (HTTP: HyperText 
> Transfer Protocol)."

We're including multimedia that may use rtsp or another protocol, so
this is not really true.

> Perhaps we could ask our "non-HTML" technology 
> representatives like Loretta
> (PDF) and Andrew Kirkpatrick (Flash) for some input. Would 
> you folks have any objection to the word "Hyperlink" in 2.4.5?

Yep.  I don't think that it is accurate for an only HTML site all the
time either.  What about a button element or some scripted behavior that
causes a change in the laoded page?  

In Flash and PDF this will be a problem also, we have close analogs to
hyperlinks in both, but there are also buttons and other actions that
are not generally regarded as hyperlinks.  The same is true for SVG and
SMIL.

How about "hyperlinks and other programmatic references"?

AWK
Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 15:31:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:42 GMT