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

Proposed definitions for content, document object, etc.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:53:43 -0400
Message-ID: <38FCD967.D17BFF53@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

As part of resolving issues 207 [1], 211 [2], 226 [3], and 233 [4],
please consider the following definitions. Compare with the
Proposed Recommendation [0].


1) Document object

   From the DOM 2 Candidate Recommendation [1]:
     
   <BLOCKQUOTE>
    The Document interface represents the entire HTML or XML
    document. Conceptually, it is the root of the document tree, 
    and provides the primary access to the document's data.
   </BLOCKQUOTE>
   [1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-DOM-Level-2-20000307/core.html#i-Document

   Based on this, I propose:

   <BLOCKQUOTE>
    The document object is the user agent's representation 
    of resources retrieved from the Web. The data that makes up
    the document object may have several origins, including
    the document source (what is returned by an HTTP request
    for a resource), generated content (from style sheets, 
    scripts, transformations, etc.), and user agent preferences.
   </BLOCKQUOTE>

2) Document object model.

   <BLOCKQUOTE>
    A document object model is the abstraction that 
    governs the construction of the user agent's document 
    object. W3C's Document Object Model (DOM) specifies 
    a document object model for HTML and XML documents. The W3C
    DOM specifies a standard interface for accessing HTML and XML 
    content. This standard interface allows authors to access and 
    modify the document with a scripting language (e.g., JavaScript)
    in a consistent manner across scripting languages. 
    As a standard interface, a document object model makes 
    it easier not just for authors but for assistive technology 
    developers to extract information and render it in ways 
    most suited to the needs of particular users. 
    The relevant W3C DOM Recommendations are listed in the references. 
    </BLOCKQUOTE>

3) Content

   <BLOCKQUOTE>
   In this specification, the term "content" refers to the
   document object. Some content is designed (by specification)
   for "human consumption". For an HTML document, this includes
   what appears between the start and end tags of elements, and
   the values of some attributes (e.g., alt, title, summary).
   Other content is meant for machines, including the markup
   itself (e.g,. element and attribute names), some attribute
   values (e.g., class, id, lang, src), style sheets, scripts,
   etc.
   </BLOCKQUOTE>

4) Equivalent alternatives for content 


  <BLOCKQUOTE>
  Since <DEL>rendered</DEL> content in some forms is not always 
  accessible to users with disabilities, authors must specify 
  equivalent alternatives for content. 
  </BLOCKQUOTE>

 /*  The rest of the definition is the same */

5) Rendered content

  <BLOCKQUOTE>
  The rendered content is that part of content that is 
  rendered in a given viewport (whether graphical, auditory,
  or tactile).
  </BLOCKQUOTE>


6) Source view

   <BLOCKQUOTE>
   A source view renders all or part of the document
   object in a way that reveals the document object
   model. Often, a source view presents the document
   object using the syntax of the source markup 
   languages.
   </BLOCKQUOTE>


7) User interface.

   No change, but I need to review the document to verify usage.


8) I propose changing the definition of "view" to be:

     The term "view" is used in this document
     to describe the purpose of a particular rendering  (e.g.,
     "outline view", "table of contents view", "links view").

NOTES:

 - The same terms (e.g., "content" appear in other W3C 
   Recommendations and have different meanings. It's ok to
   define their meaning in our specification to fit our needs.

 - "Content" has been defined so that we don't have to
   use two terms throughout the document. I need to verify
   its usage throughout the document.

 - We should also define "element" and "attribute" separately, 
   rather than as part of a definition of "content".

 - This definition of content would not change the meaning
   of checkpoint 2.1. We still need to resolve the scope of 
   2.1 in issue 207.

 - Ian

[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/PR-UAAG10-20000310/#terms
[1] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207
[2] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#211
[3] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#226
[4] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#233
-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2000 17:53:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:03 GMT