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

RE: Proposed definitions for content, document object, etc.

From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:15:08 -0400
To: "Hans Riesebos" <HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl>, <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "<" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Further,  I think that the intent of 2.1 is that the user agent make
available to the user, either natively or through AT, the content of the

A user agent is basically a parsing and rendering agent, and in the case of
AT, it is primarily a parsing agent, since the AT will do most of the
rendering.  If source view were to meet the demands of 2.1, a user agent
would be freed of the need even to parse the code into understandable
chunks.  The agent would just do its thing with no attention to access, and
pass the raw code on to the AT, which would then be expected to perform the
entire task that the host agent is supposed to do.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Hans Riesebos
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 6:17 AM
To: ij@w3.org
Cc: <
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for content, document object, etc.

Some small remarks <Hans>between these tags</Hans>

>>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> 04/18/00 10:54PM >>>

6) Source view

   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

As I understand, the "source" is unparsed and therefore cannot reveal the
document object in any way. Speaking of document object itself is false. If
only the source was already parsed (contradiction in terms), a source view
might (minimally) satisfy checkpoint 2.1, because in effect it would have
become a document object view.

Hans Riesebos
ALVA BV, The Netherlands
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 08:13:27 UTC

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