W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: problems with Checkpoint 2.1

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 01:33:54 -0500 (EST)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102050131110.8687-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Al Gilman wrote:

  Intersection is the wrong logical function for this rule.  The text view
  should
  be for anything that is viewable as text, i.e. anything in a text format,
  whether the UA has a player that can present it at a higher level of
  processing
  or not.  An example would be an SVG graphic used in a web page.  The SVG
  actually containts a lot of words, and the words are internally stored in a
  legible form following the suggestions of the access note for SVG.  But the
  User Agent doesn't implement SVG.  The user should be able to glance at the
  SVG
  source as text and find the natural language embedded there even 'though they
  don't get the graphic rendition.  In addition to this, if the user has a
  player
  for the format of any object in the content, then the user must have the
  option
  to have that content rendered with that player.

An alternative approach to this is what something like XMLSpy or Internet
Explorer without SVG support can do - render the text content since it is
ordinary XML, even using a stylesheet if one exists. This should satisfy the
requirements, but isn't actually a source view.

I agree with Al that if the User agent can render text, and particularly if
it can render XML, then it should be able to render anything in some fashion,
albeit rough. After all, this is a case of getting a rough guide because the
"main path" was impassible.

cheers

Charles
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 01:34:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:38 GMT