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

Re: Document 'content' includes all element types and attributes (yes/no?)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:10:50 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20000426134906.040ea9f0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
At 12:44 PM 2000-04-26 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Well, there are cases (such as reverse-engineering scripts) where it is only
>useful to sherlock holmes - particularly in cases of author error that is
>beyond the capability of a User Agent to repair.
>

Let me try to recapitulate the argument simply.

There are cases where the best efforts of the UA and user won't decode the
markup.

However, it is beyond the capability of the User Agent to know what the
user will and won't be able to decode.

Further, it is beyond the authority of the UA as the _user's_ agent (not
the author's gatekeeper) to presume to know.  The software processor does
not know what additional assistance the user may be able to bring to bear
on the issue.  It has to do the best it can to pass the information
through, and if it fails to communicate it isn't because the user didn't
have a chance.

So, as Wm. would say, it's bad policy for the UA to think it knows what the
user can process.

Furthermore, since it is part of the PF Group's job to stamp out such
markup from the formats, we don't need our allies in UA spreading rumors to
the effect that there is markup that the user doesn't need access to.

There is stuff that is useless.  But the user, not the User Agent, has to
admit defeat and declare it useless.

That's the point.

Al

>Charles
>
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, William Loughborough wrote:
>
>  CMcCN:: "But there is no reason why this should typically be presented
>  to the user."
>  
>  WL: "typically...presented" may not be as important as "entirely
>  available/accessible". If a "discovery tool" can't find out what the
>  author "had in mind" then neither can a "user". The important thing IMHO
>  is that whatever means is used to convey semantics not be only available
>  to Sherlock Holmes.
>  
>  -- 
>  Love.
>              ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>  http://dicomp.pair.com
>  
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2000 09:05:18 GMT

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