- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:52:36 -0500
- To: "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "'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>
Andrew Kirkpatrick says: >>>How about "hyperlinks and other programmatic references"? I support this amendment to 2.4.5. Then we could define programmatic reference in the glossary using one of the definitions discussed earlier. Or another definition of Programmatic reference. .Access empowers people .barriers disable them. www.eramp.com -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:30 AM To: David MacDonald; Christophe Strobbe; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Cc: akirkpatrick@macromedia.com; Loretta Guarino Reid; Gregg Vanderheiden Subject: RE: Bug 1649 Definition of "Programmatic Reference" > "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 16:53:24 UTC