- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:41:43 +0200
- To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, achuter@technosite.es, "Public MWBP" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:26:09 +0200, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to proceed here so we can close this document. > > On process.... > Chaals, what concrete solution do you put forward? Remove the text [[[ There is no standard way for a content provider to indicate the availability of access keys to users of the site. Common techniques are: + Link decoration (put the access key in brackets next to a link e.g. [1] Home). + Summary page. + Listing on a site map. ]]] From section 3.1 [...] > Are there others, aside from Alan who has already spoken up, with an > opinion on the subject? > > > On topic.... > Chaals, I still don't understand what you are objecting to. > > 1) we don't mention anywhere that the author does this or must do this. No, the text I refer to doesn't match any particular requirement, but seems to be strongly conincidentally related to the last test in the evaluation list. In practice, I suggest removing that too since most user agents that handle access keys make them available by inspection (sometimes through a system function) and those that do not can be considered to be buggy. Alternatively, we should explicitly note this issue and point out that as part of dealing with common bugs, sites should provide decoration for specific known buggy implementations. ... > It is rather late to get into a discussion at this level and I really > would like that commentary a few month earlier. Yeah, I understand that, and I am sorry to start so late in the process. > As such I want to finish this as quickly as possible. > > > -- Kai > -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 10:42:26 UTC