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

RE: REVISED Web Page Proposal - Version 2.0

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:49:31 +0000
Message-ID: <975AB691AA4A1140A6707B3176EF72CC01A39DB4@eur-msg-110.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>




I think any workable definition has to be relative to the user agent,
and not only that relative to to the specific moment in time at which
the request is received as well. Any defintion which ignores these
aspects will fail to capture the dynamics of the web.

The aspect of in-place update after the main web request, and before the
next one is also problematic, but I think OK provided it captures the
case that the update completely replaces the root resource.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:  
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: 02 November 2006 09:39
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 Friday, 3 November 2006 14:20:07 GMT

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