- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:11:47 +0100
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 21/04/2017 13:55, David MacDonald wrote: > >>"without the need for it to be downloaded locally to a user's > environment first (though even here issues of local cache for UAs may > need to be at least aknowledged/outscoped). And a user agent is anything > that can access and display/process web content directly from a URI > without the need for it to be run locally, of sorts" > > You can see that its a difficult problem we struggled with, and I don't > think this gets us much closer, and changing for perhaps minor > improvement may just pick at the scab and cause all kinds of problems. Sure, it may be a difficult problem. But since these are the *Web Content* Accessibility Guidelines, and all the introductory material for the spec talks about "Web content" everywhere, I think it would be nice to actually define this in a bit more detail to make sure it's clear what this whole spec actually applies to. > The next version in Silver may just strip away the http part of it and > talk about "Content" rather than web pages. > > Actually, the term "web content" is not in even ONE success criteria. It > is used in the introduction and supporting material and definitions, > which is why its in the glossary, but the SCs rely on the definition of > Web Page which is more specific than the definition of web content. The > key is URI. Then maybe the definition of "Web content" should at least reference the definition of "Web page" perhaps. Anyway, I know it's a small thing, but the fact we occasionally have to take a step back and ask "so what's *actually* web content / what is this spec applicable to" is possibly a sign that more clarity wouldn't go amiss. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 13:12:22 UTC