W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2005

Re: SVG12: nav-* properties

From: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 01:08:36 +1000
Message-Id: <4CB5EAEA-9CD3-419C-AA24-199F61B7D5E7@w3.org>
Cc: Ola Andersson <Ola.Andersson@ikivo.com>, www-svg@w3.org
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>


On 23/05/2005, at 7:14 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>
> * Ola Andersson wrote:
>
>>>  In http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/ 
>>> svgudom.html the
>>> definition of the moveFocus operations refers to nav-*  
>>> properties, no
>>> such properties are defined in the draft, please change the draft  
>>> such
>>> that it refers to something it actually defines.
>>>
>
>
>> nav-* properties have been replaced by focus*.
>>
>
> This does not satisfy me. I think rather than inventing new mechanisms
> the SVG Working Group should coordinate with the CSS WG to satisfy the
> dependencies noted in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/svg-charter and if  
> that
> fails, note that in the Last Call Announcement as required by the
> Process document.

We replaced nav-* with focus* after feedback from the WAI
domain.

Personally, I'm ok with either solution. However, we need
8-way navigation, not 4-way as CSS3-UI provides. Assuming that
CSS WG would accept an enhancement to this feature then I
think nav-* is acceptable. What do you think?

You don't really need to answer the following questions. In
fact I'd prefer it if you didn't :) I'm much more interested
in your feedback on the proposal.

> Could you please point me to the SVG WG comment on css3-ui on why the
> reference had to be removed from SVG 1.2?

Sorry, I don't understand. You think that in order to remove a
reference to a specification we were not using we have to
send a comment on that specification?

> Are there positive review
> comments from the CDF Working Group that they support conflicting
> navigation order mechanisms in e.g. a XHTML+SVG document type?

Do you mean positive review comments on SVG Tiny, or just
positive comments in general?


> Does
> SVG 1.2 "Full" still use the nav-* properties?

No.

> If so, how are conflicts
> resolved between the two mechanisms?

No conflicts.

Dean
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 15:08:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:30 GMT