- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:16:24 +0000
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- CC: 'Cynthia Shelly' <cyns@microsoft.com>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
John Foliot wrote: > Cynthia Shelly wrote: >> >> <cyns> >> This says to show it by default *in authoring scenarios*. For a current >> browser, that would generally mean on things that are content-editable. >> For a visual authoring tool, it would render in the editing/design >> surface, but not in previews. I'd like to get general agreement here >> that this is a good idea, and then I'll happily take it to the IE team >> and various authoring tools teams. It sounds like you think it's a good >> idea. Is that correct? Anyone else? Anyone hate it? >> </cyns> > > I believe it is both a good idea, and an idea that has been floating > around in various forms, suggested by various folks, including both myself > and as I recall Matt May. It would be even *better* if the browsers/UI > allowed the end user to toggle 'display' on or off as determined by any > given user. Previously I had suggested a 'right-click' kind of > functionality (knowing full well that this is a windows-centric > suggestion, but a similar type of functionality could be achieved in all > of the major OSes) Sorry, I didn't comment in the previous mail. Yes, this is not a bad idea. If it is relatively trivial for vendors to implement this kind of thing in their browsers, >> What if we got rid of the validation warning, positioned <details> and >> @summary as mechanisms for including non-visible text, and then >> discussed the value of including visible text, and situations where >> authors might not be able to? This seems like something we could all >> live with, which is all that's needed for consensus. >> </cyns> > > +1 Yes, why not. I could certainly live with that. Cheers Josh
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 10:17:05 UTC