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

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

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:45:29 -0400
Message-ID: <38FDC689.D38A8F8B@w3.org>
To: Hans Riesebos <HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hans Riesebos wrote:
> 
> Some small remarks <Hans>between these tags</Hans>
> 
> >>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> 04/18/00 10:54PM >>>
> 
> 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>
> 
> <Hans>
> 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>

See Al's related comment - he too felt that the "source view" should
be defined as showing the unparsed (or re-parsable) document source. 

If the source view shows only the document source, that means it won't
show the result of the application of style sheets, transformations, 
user agent preferences, and scripts. This means the source view will
show what came "over the wire" before any local processing. I'm ok with
that if that's how we define it. Is that how source views work in
practice?

 - Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 10:45:50 GMT

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