W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: HTML WG last call comments for UAAG 1.0

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:30:51 +0200
Message-ID: <08cf01c2646d$dc9c0320$2002a8c0@srx41p>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>

> >> Checkpoint 3.5
> >>
> >> "Authors (and Webmasters) should use the redirect mechanisms of HTTP
> >> instead of client-side redirects."
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what this means. is <meta http-equiv="..." /> a redirect
> >> mechanism of HTTP?
>
> No, that's browser-specific behavior that is not the same
> as an HTTP redirect.

And yet HTML 4 says:

"The http-equiv attribute can be used in place of the name attribute and has
a special significance when documents are retrieved via the Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP). HTTP servers may use the property name specified
by the http-equiv attribute to create an [RFC822]-style header in the HTTP
response."

So http-equiv is *intended* to affect how servers respond. In other words,
according to HTML 4 <meta http-equiv ...> *is* "using the redirect
mechanisms of HTTP"!

So I think the wording needs to be tightened up to cover the real intention,
and preferably without mention of the method used for the redirection (for
instance HLink allows redirects without use of http-equiv).

If I understand it, if a document is *immediately* redirected (because it
has been moved or whatever) all is well; if a document is periodically
refreshed, or redirected after a time delay, then the user needs to be
consulted first.

I think that this is a better approach also because HTTP redirects allow you
to refresh periodically too, and the user needs a say then as well.

> >> Checkpoint 11.4
> >> Would an emacs-like method of typing "escape" to go into single-key
mode,
> >> and then letting you type a single single-key be allowable here?
>
> Yes.
>
> >> Or do you
> >> have to be able to toggle into and out of single-key mode explicitely?
I
> >> couldn't tell.
>
> I don't think we have much more detail on this; what problem
> do you see that is not solved?

Well, some people might see esc-p for "print" as a two-key binding, yet you
say it is acceptable as an interpretation of single-key binding:

"A single-key binding is one where a single key press performs the task,
with zero modifier keys.

Sufficient techniques

The user agent may satisfy the requirements of provision two of this
checkpoint with a "single-key mode" (i.e., a mode where the current bindings
are replaced by a set of single-key bindings)."

So sentence one says "single key press" and the last sentence allows two key
presses, so there may be some confusion about conformance (well, there is,
because I wasn't sure).

Maybe the issue here is modifier keys, rather than number of key presses,
but I leave it to you to describe.

Best wishes,

Steven
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 04:31:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:11 GMT