- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:09:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon's original comments are in OJG: Ian's comments in IJ: Jon's responses to Ian are in JRG: My responses in CMN: OJG: Provide programmatic access for dependent user agents to read and manipulate the content in the currently rendered HTML content (or document tree). IJ: Can we say "document tree" if that'swhat we mean? JRG: Is the document tree also apart of multi-media players? Why I said content instead of the document tree is that I want to include in this checkpoint mult-media players and other plugins like Adobe Acobat that may not be HTML. Maybe we could have 2 checkpoints one for HTML content (or W3C recommended content) which could use the term document tree and another for proprietary content (non-W3C recommend content). Document Tree sounds more technical to me than just content, but as long as it is interpreted as the same thing I guess it is alright. CMN: I don't think we need two checkpoints. I think we should use document tree, (or a similar term - we are trying to get at the thing which is modelled by the DOM in certain languages) and define it. The document tree includes all the elements within a document - for a GIF that might be a single image (but it might be several images, a title, some animation looping controls, etc). OJG: > Checkpoint 7.2.b [Priority 1] > Provide programmatic access for dependent user agents to desktop user agent > controls: including menus, toolbars and other user interface elements that > are used to direct and control the rendering of WWW content. IJ: What does the last clause: "that are used to direct andcontrol" mean? JRG: It is just my attempt to be inclusive of all types of user interface controls. I think it would be also good to add the phrase "and indicate status or other orientation information". CMN: I don't think the clause in question is necessary - this is a list of some examples of user agent controls. I also think that this should not be restricted to desktop user agents - access to controls should be available in both directions. [snip] OJG: > Checkpoint 7.2.e [Priority 2] > Provide a programmatic interface for dependent user agents to manipulate > the rendering of WWW content. IJ: This sounds too vague. We were asked to break out checkpointsin Guideline 5.1. Why not here? JRG: This could be removed if 7.2.a is changed to include manipulation. CMN: Seems like a good idea to me. OJG: > Provide a programmatic interface for dependent user agents to know if a > link (anchor) has been visited or not. IJ: The specificity of this one strikes me when compared to the other ones. I agree with it, but it could be part of several ofthe previous checkpoint. JRG: This was a topic of discussion in the last telecon and some people felt it was important. It is not available through DOM and probablt never will do to privacy issues. So I included it as a low priority checkpoint. IE already exposes this information through Active Accessibility. CMN: I don't think this is a DOM issue. I think the information should be available, along with other information of the same nature, in section 6.1
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 13:09:35 UTC