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: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:58:48 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000211105332.014afbe0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: schwer@us.ibm.com
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
RIch,
I don't think we can put anything in our guidelines to a document that is
not a recommendation.  I think it is a stretch to recommend implementation
of a DOM level 2 specification, since it is in candidate recommendation.
We need to check with Ian what the implications are of even referencing
documents that are still in the final stages of becoming a recommendation,
in this case DOM level 2. 

I am concerned about referencing the current event model in DOM level 3 for
accessibility, based on the response to my proposal.  It seems to be
lacking in accessibility features.  The main reason I proposed it was as a
way for assistive technology to use the DOM to simulate events.  Is this
enough of a reason to include it?

Jon


At 05:26 AM 2/11/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Friday, 11 February 2000 12:01:19 GMT

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