- From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:30:21 -0800
- To: "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>, "Christophe Strobbe" <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: <akirkpatrick@macromedia.com>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
> "After all, web content is 'hypertext' (HTTP: HyperText > Transfer Protocol)." We're including multimedia that may use rtsp or another protocol, so this is not really true. > Perhaps we could ask our "non-HTML" technology > representatives like Loretta > (PDF) and Andrew Kirkpatrick (Flash) for some input. Would > you folks have any objection to the word "Hyperlink" in 2.4.5? Yep. I don't think that it is accurate for an only HTML site all the time either. What about a button element or some scripted behavior that causes a change in the laoded page? In Flash and PDF this will be a problem also, we have close analogs to hyperlinks in both, but there are also buttons and other actions that are not generally regarded as hyperlinks. The same is true for SVG and SMIL. How about "hyperlinks and other programmatic references"? AWK
Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 15:31:36 UTC