- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:58:59 +0200
- To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:15:53 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > Charles McCathieNevile, Sat, 12 Jun 2010 02:39:58 +0200: >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:33:23 +0200, Charles McCathieNevile: >> >>> I'll try to update >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom with this >>> content in the next hour or so, >> >> Done, plus I got a big chunk of the way through the details section - ... > (1) I notice that you, unlike how Steve and John have said (I believe), > pose this solution as a *replacement of* - and not an alternative to - > the accessible DOM. I believe you have had that approach the whole > time, because the proposal has had the direction "HTML 4 Maps, not > accessible DOM" all the time. I have always had that approach. This proposal is technically compatible with the nonav proposal (or even with what Ian has currently), but for reasons I hope are outlined in the proposal rationale already I think it is better to have one approach, and I believe this is the simplest for authors. > (2) May be you should push (harder) on the fact that this solution is > more compatible with the 1001 variations of "Don't reinvent the > cow/path/wheel" in our Design Principles, than the aDOM. ;-) Yes. That's an important part of why I think this approach makes sense. cheers Chaals -- 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, 14 June 2010 11:59:37 UTC