W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Important: Issues relating to checkpoint 2.1 raised during 30 March teleconference.

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004031039430.31685-100000@tux.w3.org>
My position has been and is that all content designed to be human-readable
must be accessible through the User Interface (clarifying the question that
Phill brought up, which is not treated in the checkpoint as it is) but that
all content (as defined in the document, and apparently agreed on March
2) must be available somehow.

My proposal does not reverse the decision that all content must be
available. It makes explicit the assumption of at least some of the group
that stuff meant for human consumption is served in a form meant for human
consumption (rather than source). It does not require that a source view is
available, although it effectively requires the functionality that a source
view provides.

Also, I disagree that all content must be available through the UI or an API
- as I understand it, the content must be available (subject to the
applicability clause) through both methods.


Charles McCN

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
  I believe that saying the following would not change the scope
  of 1.2:
   1) All content must be available (through the UI or an API).
   2) When rendered through the UI, human-viewable content must
      be rendered for human consumption (and a source view does not
      suffice since markup is not meant for ordinary users).
   3) Not all content that is human-viewable
      must be made available through the user interface.
  I haven't heard agreement on point three, even though I believe
  there was consensus on 2 March 2000 to leave checkpoint 1.2 ambiguous
  about what had to be rendered through the user interface.
  I believe that if we change three to be "All content that is meant
  to be viewed by the user must be available through the UI", then
  we are not only reversing a decision made on 2 March, but we are
  the scope of checkpoint 1.2.
  I think we need to make 1.2 clearer, and changing point 3 is probably
  a good idea since it will reduce the ambiguity about what needs to
  be available through the UI (we already know that everything must
  be available through an API).
   - Ian
Received on Monday, 3 April 2000 10:45:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:26 UTC