W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-hc@w3.org > October to December 1997

Re: Last Call: The mailto URL scheme to Proposed Standard (fwd)

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 10:18:24 +0100
Message-Id: <199711070918.KAA06642@www47.inria.fr>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
cc: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone), w3c-wai-hc@w3.org (HC team)


> to follow up on what MegaZone said:
> 
> > Last chance to speak up on this - personally I don't like this proposal
> > because it breaks too many UAs.  Even with a browser that recognizes the
> > extentions it can break if you use a different email client.
> > 

I agree with Meg that there are things (not related to access) one can
worry about in this spec, backward compatibility and lack of security
coverage for instance.
 
> Have you been through the discussion in 
> 
>   http://www.access.digex.net/%7Easgilman/web-access/process_points.html
> 
> ?  From that perspective, it would seem to be beneficial for the level 
> of integration of the online blind.

In the sense that it provides ways to implement simpler UI (less
typing in this particular case, possibly combined with richer linking
mechanism), yes, it helps access.
 
> What do you feel is the right forum in which to discuss this at this
> point?

The meta question is whether or not any proposal that is an
improvement of the UI in general (at the price of some other
functionality - like security or compatibility) is something we should
fight for, given that in the area of accessibility, the UI problem is
always worsen (e.g. long option navigation).

It's a question of priority really and I personally don't mind having
the WAI putting pressure on the UI issues, and let the others worry
about the other issues.
Received on Friday, 7 November 1997 04:19:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:11 UTC