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 11:25:41 -0400
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "Hans Riesebos" <HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GEEALOAPINMEBKLJPLPJKEABCFAA.danson@miseri.edu>
Ian,

When I use the term "content," I mean the "information" in the page.
Specifically, what the author of the page hoped to convey to the reader of
the page.  Some of that information may be in the form of text, some in the
form of picture, and some in the form of layout.

It will always be impossible for the browser to "know" what the author
intended, but our goal is to make that intended information available to the
user with a disability.  It may well be that the author *intended* some of
the text to be invisible, at some stages of viewing of the page.  The AT
must have some way of knowing this, and presenting the information as it is
appropriate.

Doing a "page dump" (the electronic equivalent of a brain dump) seldom
conveys the intention of the author.  You can't just pile all of the
available information on the user, and expect them to sort it out.  That's
why we have parsing!

Denis

-----Original Message-----
From: ian@w3.org [mailto:ian@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ian Jacobs
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:49 AM
To: Denis Anson
Cc: Hans Riesebos; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed definitions for content, document object, etc.


Denis Anson wrote:
>
> 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
> page.

The intent of 2.1 is being debated. I believe that it currently reads
as you say, but that we are going to remove the "or through an API"
part.

What do you mean be "content of the page"? Please refer to the
definition
of content proposed [1] and see if that meets your expectations.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0132.html


> 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.
>
> Denis
>
> -----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
>
>    <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>
>
> Hans Riesebos
> ALVA BV, The Netherlands
> HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl

--
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 11:23:52 GMT

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