Re: Evaluation results: new tags

Sorry for any confusion.  I was talking about elements / attributes that
are in HTML 4.0, in particular Longdesc, Accesskey and Header + ID.

Now I'm confused about whether or not is known how Longdesc is to be used:
Wendy says it is not known and the UA group are looking into it, and
Charles says it is known!
If it is known, I think 2.7 of the Techniques could briefly describe, for
example, how a screen reader might inform a user of the presence of the
link, and whether this would differ for images, scripts or applets.
If it is not yet known the Techniques could say that this is under
discussion and describe how it is expected to be used.

Regarding Accesskey: from previous discussions it seems that this is
currently supported more widely (by mobile devices, I think).  It would
also be useful to have a brief description of how a screen reader might
inform a user of the presence of Accesskeys, and how the user might
interact with them.  I assume the interaction with Accesskey depends on
which element it is used with.

Regarding Header & ID for Tables: I don't know whether these are currently
supported by any type of device.  If they are not, is it known how they are
likely to be used?  As I have suggested above the Techniques could have
either a description of how they are used, or are likely to be used.

I think all this would help authors in both how such elements should be
implemented, and understanding how users of different browsers and
assistive technology interact with elements.


On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>I think there is sme confusion here. As I understood it, Chetz was talking
>about elements which are not in the HTML 4.0 spec. Now I think I misread
>it, and you meant things like LONGDESC. It is known how to use those, but
>generally they are only implemented in latest-release or specialty
>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Chetz Colwell wrote:
>  I had assumed that it had already been worked out how the new elements /
>  attributes ought to be used.  I'm not sure that link to discussions would
>  be useful on their own - it might just confuse people further.
>  Perhaps the Techniques could indicate that these tags are new and that it
>  is not yet known how they should be used, in addition to links to specific
>  discussions.  Then authors would hopefully be clear what the current
>  situation is.
>  Chetz
>  Wendy Chisholm wrote:
>  >What kind of addtional support do you propose should be added for using
>  >new elements?
>  >
>  >Since the user agent working group is thinking about on how longdesc and
>  >other new elements and attributes ought to be used, we don't want to
>  >duplicate their efforts in our document. If we link to specific
>  >discussions of new elements in the user agent guidelines, will this
>  >satisfy the needs of the participants?

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 1999 12:57:48 UTC