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

RE: REVISED Web Page Proposal - Version 2.0

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 11:38:57 -0600
To: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ad01c6fea5$c78b6c60$8c17a8c0@NC84301>

Jason is correct.

What was proposed was:

Anything that is invoked by the primary resource is part of the web page.

If there are multiple primary resources that can be obtained by content
negotiation from a URI - then each would be a web page.  In conformance we
say that if negotiation fails then the accessible version would be served.

If there are arguments in the URI then it is a different URI  (e.g.
example.com/pagename?xx=yy )     (Within page references do not mean it is a
new URI   e.g.  example.com/pagename#yy ) 


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:39 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: REVISED Web Page Proposal - Version 2.0
> 
> 
> 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 agent.
> 
> 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 17:39:35 GMT

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