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

Re: DOM review of UA Guidelines

From: Lauren Wood <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:16:39 -0800
Message-Id: <199912031818.KAA22838@mail.sqwest.bc.ca>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>
CC: User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
On 3 Dec 99, at 0:35, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

> aloha, lauren!
> 
> have you seen håkon's comments on the DOM in his review of the UAGL? [1]
> 
> quote
>  > 5.6 Conform to W3C Document Object Model specifications and export
>  > interfaces defined by those specifications. [Priority 1]
> 
> Adding support for DOM effectively turns a browser into an editor.
> This is often beneficial, but in memory-constrained enviroments it is
> often impossible. By making this Priority 1, a whole segment of UAs
> will fail conformance and might therefore pay less attention to the
> Guidelines in general. I suggest changing it to Priority 2 and limit
> the requirement fo the read (i.e. not write) portions of the DOM.

It depends on why you say that UAs should implement the DOM. 
Since I think that you could use the DOM to implement 5.1, 5.3 
and 5.5, which are all Priority 1, it would seem to follow that at 
least some parts of the DOM should be Priority 1. If the UA is a 
readonly tool, then obviously read-write parts of the DOM are 
inapplicable, but could be used for "writing" parts of a document to, 
e.g., a screen-reader.

However, if you don't see the DOM as being a way to implement 
other guidelines, but as something else entirely, then the priority 
should depend on what use cases you have for using the DOM at 
all.


Lauren
Received on Friday, 3 December 1999 13:22:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:25 UTC