- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:48:27 +1100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: >> BTW: a whole discussion about the necessary OS/browser preferences for >> accessibility will need to be had and I assume it will likely be had >> in the accessibility task force. >> >> I raised it here since it's not just an accessibility but also an >> internationalisation issue. >> >> Regards, >> Silvia. >> >> > > This does sound like a necessary and worthwhile discussion. > > However, I'm not sure this is the right place to have this discussion. > Or if the accessibility task force is either, since it's purpose is to > look at accessibility issues related to HTML/XHTML and the DOM, not > browser behavior. > > We have to remember that browsers are only one type of user agent and > that there are potentially many different user agents consuming HTML. > I believe we need to focus less on browser behavior, and more on HTML. > > Even the reference to the navigator object is browser specific, not > DOM specific. Though objects like window and navigator are considered > "DOM Level 0", they're really not DOM, as we know the Document Object > Model from previous and current implementations. They're part of the > BOM, or Browser Object Model. Most particularly, discussions related > to the BOM and JavaScript are not related to HTML. I plan on > submitting several bugs next week related to the fact that the HTML5 > specification has become more of a reverse engineering of browser > behavior than a document describing enhancements to HTML. It would > remiss for me to plan to file bugs on past effort, without bringing up > my concerns with new issues. Even if I do agree with the principle > behind the issue. > > It's unfortunate that the browser companies don't have their own > browser-specific working group, unrelated to HTML. This is exactly the > type of thing that would fit within that group's agenda. That and the > other ongoing discussion related to how browsers handle malformed > XHTML. Maybe then the discussion has to move to the WHATWG. I was indeed uncertain if this was the correct forum. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 23:49:19 UTC