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:

  Provide programmatic access for dependent user agents to read and
  manipulate the content in the currently rendered HTML content (or document
  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.

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).
  > 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.
  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".

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.
  > Checkpoint 7.2.e [Priority 2]
  > Provide a programmatic interface for dependent user agents to manipulate
  > the rendering of WWW content.
  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.
Seems like a good idea to me.

  > Provide a programmatic interface for dependent user agents to know if a
  > link (anchor) has been visited or not.
  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.  

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC