- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:34:03 +0100
- To: "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, public-cdf@w3.org
- Cc: wai-liaison@w3.org
Hi Al Gilman, WAI WG, Some notes and questions below on these comments. I have not replied to all comments and I'm not speaking on behalf of the CDF WG, though I think it would be interesting for the CDF WG to get the questions answered. On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:18:07 +0100, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> wrote: > CDF 1.0 review > > Sounds like are requiring DOM 3 through the use of ReferencedDocument - > Document.Write() is gone - yes? document.write() is still in DOM Level 2 HTML, why would it be gone? (There is no subsequent version of DOM Level 2 HTML (like DOM Level 3 HTML) either.) > What is the default language per embedded document? For example, what > happens when you have a lang attribute in a block, specified in XHTML, > set to Spanish, and within it you have an object tag referencing an > embedded SVG document or some other document? XHTML 2.0 requires a lang > attribute on the document. It would be nice if we stressed consistency > across other XML markups - or we require this on the object tag. "lang" or "xml:lang" only inherit within a document, they don't inherit their way into child documents. The same as with CSS and other things. > Why do you refer to HTML4 in this spec. No HTML 4 implementation > supports DOM 3. No XHTML implementation supports it either. In fact, I'm not aware of any implementation that has full DOM Level 3 support. (And then some parts of DOM Level 3 are still a note and not yet a recommendation. > Also it is non-extensible which is problematic for adding accessibility > semantics targeted for XML markup.This ius a step backward. It would > seem that supporting an non-XML based infoset document format is a > mistake. The whole web uses HTML. You would think that solutions for accessibility would also target the web as it is. Adding semantics in HTML is possible using the "profile" attribute and "class" attribute values. Extending allowed values for "rel", et cetera. > 6.2 Focus Event triggered Child Element Animations > > In our new DHTML spec you do not need to use anchors - you may also use > divs and spans: > > <div TABINDEX= "-1"> > <object type="image/svg+xml" data="foo1.svg"> > <param name="animation" value="onfocusevent" /> </object> > </div> > > It would be good to pull this in. The attribute "TABINDEX" is not allowed on all elements. While I agree that such an extension of HTML 4 (and specifications that build on HTML 4, like XHTML 1 and the XHTML Modularization) would be quite useful for accessibility purposes I haven't seen any proposed errata from the HTML WG covering this change. Also, in the above example, why not directly put it on the <object> element... > WICD Full 1.0 review > > So, why does full only support XHTML 1.1 when your document specifies > the use of XHTML 2 or other markups? Is it because the browser does not > support XHTML 2? Which document specifies the use of XHTML 2? > What is most concerning is these specs. address the use of ECMAScript > whose implementation on HTML or XHTML is frought with accessibility > problems due to gaps in HTML. Has the WAI WG raised issues with the HTML WG on this? If there are indeed serious accessibility problems with HTML I suggest the WAI WG makes sure they get resolved given that HTML is about the only language really used on the web. The other 0.01% percent uses XHTML 1 which is based on HTML and has the same semantics. Kind regards, Anne van Kesteren -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2006 11:34:42 UTC