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

Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 to say "write access only for that which you can do through the UI."

From: <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 05:26:49 -0600
To: menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak)
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <85256882.0042FBCD.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>



The DOM event model is an ongoing discussion in the WAI/PF. We are going to
submit requirements to the DOM working group regarding the event model for
DOM 3 in March.

The reason I put it at P2 was because DOM 2 is not out yet. I also share
some device independence issues regarding the DOM 2 event model.

If some developers could start adopting the DOM 2 event model, it should
reduce the time it would take to get the desired DOM 3 event model
implemented and also ATs would have something to go from.

We ought to be pushing for P1 with DOM 3 in the UA assuming the correct
changes are made between the DOM and PF working groups.

Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger
Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
Frost


menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 02/10/2000 10:15:30 AM

To:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita"
      <unagi69@concentric.net>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
      Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc:   User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI
      Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 to
      say   "write  access only for that which you can do through the UI."




hi Jon and all

I agree that all elements ought to understand and implement
the appropriate event model, so for the UA, I don't see my
next comment changing the UA process at the moment.

However, I'm not in favor of making this a priority 1, since I'm not
a fan of the event model within DOM 2.  This is an on-going
(I hope ) discussion on the PF/DOM working group lists.

After the events/event model are understood, this checkpoint
may need re-visiting.

mark

At 8:55 AM 2/10/00, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>It seems there is a consensus to merge 5.3 and 5.5 from my proposal into a
>single checkpoint of at least Priority 2 and maybe a priority 1 level.
The
>new checkpoint would require implementation of the event model specified
in
>the Candidate Recommendation of DOM2 for all elements.
>
>Jon
Received on Friday, 11 February 2000 07:11:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:51 GMT