W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: PROPOSAL: Expanding Checkpoint 7.2.1 into several checkpoints

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:09:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904131255380.23704-100000@tux.w3.org>
Jon's original comments are in OJG:
Ian's comments in IJ:
Jon's responses to Ian are in JRG:
My responses in CMN:

OJG:
  Provide programmatic access for dependent user agents to read and
  manipulate the content in the currently rendered HTML content (or document
  tree).
  
IJ:  
  Can we say "document tree" if that'swhat we mean?
  
  JRG: Is the document tree also apart of multi-media players?  
  Why I said content instead of the document tree is that I want to include
  in this checkpoint mult-media players and other plugins like Adobe Acobat
  that may not be HTML.   Maybe we could have 2 checkpoints one for HTML
  content (or W3C recommended content) which could use the term document tree
  and another for proprietary content (non-W3C recommend content).  Document
  Tree sounds more technical to me than just content, but as long as it is
  interpreted as the same thing I guess it is alright.

CMN:
I don't think we need two checkpoints. I think we should use document
tree, (or a similar term - we are trying to get at the thing which is
modelled by the DOM in certain languages) and define it. The document tree
includes all the elements within a document - for a GIF that might be a
single image (but it might be several images, a title, some
animation looping controls, etc).
  
OJG:
  > Checkpoint 7.2.b [Priority 1]
  > Provide programmatic access for dependent user agents to desktop user agent
  > controls: including menus, toolbars and other user interface elements that
  > are used to direct and control the rendering of WWW content.
IJ:  
  What does the last clause: "that are used to direct andcontrol" mean? 

  JRG: It is just my attempt to be inclusive of all types of user interface
  controls.  I think it would be also good to add the phrase "and indicate
  status or other orientation information".

CMN:
I don't think the clause in question is necessary - this is a list of some
examples of user agent controls. I also think that this should not be
restricted to desktop user agents - access to controls should be available
in both directions.
  
[snip]
OJG:
  > Checkpoint 7.2.e [Priority 2]
  > Provide a programmatic interface for dependent user agents to manipulate
  > the rendering of WWW content.
IJ:  
  This sounds too vague. We were asked to break out checkpointsin Guideline
  5.1. Why not here?
  JRG: This could be removed if 7.2.a is changed to include manipulation.
CMN:
Seems like a good idea to me.

OJG:  
  > Provide a programmatic interface for dependent user agents to know if a
  > link (anchor) has been visited or not.
IJ:  
  The specificity of this one strikes me when compared to the other ones. I
  agree with it, but it could be part of several ofthe previous checkpoint.
  
  JRG: This was a topic of discussion in the last telecon and some people
  felt it was important.  It is not available through DOM and probablt never
  will do to privacy issues.  So I included it as a low priority checkpoint.
  IE already exposes this information through Active Accessibility.  

CMN:
I don't think this is a DOM issue. I think the information should be
available, along with other information of the same nature, in section 6.1
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 13:09:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:48:57 GMT