W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Ian's comments on XAG

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:52:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204151041290.22080-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:

  Ian said:
  >   - I think checkpoints 1.2 and 2.1 are so general as to be
  >     not that useful. Please be more specific; pick the most
  >     important cases and make a few extra checkpoints.

  Perhaps for 1.2 revert to the example of
   <mediaExample>
     <imgObj>...
     <textObj> ...
     <audioObj> ...
   </mediaExample>

  To demonstrate the 'flexibility' mentioned.

The problem is that this doesn't, in my opinion, meet the requirement in the
best possible way. It limits the flexibility to a few specific types, unless
it is clear that additional types can be added.

Maybe a better appraoch would be to use

   <mediaExample>
     <Obj xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/image"
xlink:href="imageVesrion" />
     <Obj xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/shortText"
xlink:href="shortText" />
     <Obj xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/movie"
xlink:href="movie" />
     ...
   </mediaExample>

DP
  For 2.1 I tend to agree with Ian.
CMN
me too

IJ/DP
  >   - The first sentence in techniques for 1.2 is hard to understand.
  Was

  In SVG, the desc element can be used to fully described a graphic, using
  structured text from a different XML dialect for instance, and in the
  graphics itself, the description text can be reused.

  Suggest:
  In SVG, the desc element can be used to described a graphic object,
   using a plain text description. If structure is required, alternate
  namespaces may be used.

CMN
This looks good to me.

IJ
  >   - In checkpoint 2.1: "Ensure all semantics are capture in markup in
  >     a repurposable form."
  >
  >      - Does this mean that scripts are illegal in XAG formats?

DP
  Good question, not addressed by XAG.
  Is it that scripting is out of scope or that we are deliberately ignoring it
  or have not thought of it?

CMN
I don't they are out of scope or that we haven't considered it. The real
thing we don't have is demonstrative examples. There are things scripts
should and shouldn't operate on - in HTML a script used to mimic a
submmission button is almost always bad, but a script that triggers a genuine
submission is a reasonable thing to do (assuming the rest of what it oes is
reasonable). And a script that adds and removes a bit  of content is an
intersting question, where as one that manipulates styling properties for
visual effect is probably OK if the underlying information is constructed
accessibly. In the latter case SMIL animation is a good approach to take,
since it does things declaratively, which is easier to re present in the
general case (Warning - this is a big and somewhat untested claim).

chaals
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:54:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:37 GMT