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

Re: REVISED Web Page Proposal - Version 2.0

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:38:48 +1100
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <20061102093848.GA5950@jdc>

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Johannes Koch wrote:
> So, speaking in XLink terms, everything that is referenced onLoad (in contrast 
> to onRequest) is part of the web page.

That's exactly how I understand Gregg's proposal. The main difficulty that I
find in it is that the definition is, indeed explicitly, relative to the user

One way of solving this is to say that in the case of ambiguity, the more
inclusive interpretation (encompassing more resources) should be preferred in
deciding what is included in a "Web page" (or "Web unit" or whatever it is
to be called).

Also, suppose there are two or more "versions" of the content obtainable via
content negotiation from the same URI. Which other resources are rendered
simultaneously with them will depend on which of the alternatives is supplied
in response to the request made by a user agent. Also, only one of the
alternatives will be rendered in response to such a user agent request.

My suggested solution is that if two or more primary resources are identified
by the same URI, each of them (along with any dependent resources associated
respectively with it) should be considered a separate "page" for purposes of
the guidelines. That is, each version of the content has its own page, and, if
the existing rule is to be maintained, where multiple pages are referred to by
the same URI, conformance is attained if one of these pages conforms at a
given level.
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 09:41:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:01 UTC