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

Re: Proposal for Checkpoint 2.1

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 20:22:04 -0400
Message-ID: <390E1FAC.B6A7A34B@w3.org>
To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Phill wrote:
> > 1. Alternative ... primary content
> >      we are not asking for alternative to attributes are we?? - of course
> > not.
> Ian wrote:
> >I don't understand your statement.
> If we define content to include attributes, then the statement:
> > 1. Alternative equivalents should be available through the User Interface
> > in place of or in conjunction with primary content
> would also mean "alternative equivalents to attributes should be available
> through the User Interface in place of or in conjunction with the primary
> attributes" - which no longer makes sense.   I was just substituting the
> word "attribute" for the word "content", since attribute is currently part
> of the definition of content.  If attribute we NOT part of the definition,
> then I couldn't substitute the words.  My point being that when I
> substitute the word "attribute" for the word "content", many of our
> statements no longer make sense - hence my request to delete attributes
> from the definition of content.

I don't think the straightforward substitution works because it
necessarily excludes other pieces of the puzzle. Access to equivalents
means equivalents however they are specified: by attribute values (alt),
by reference (longdesc), in content (OBJECT), in HTTP headers, etc.
Choosing one piece without the others is likely to lead to some
incomplete statements.

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 20:23:13 UTC

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