- From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:38:58 -0500
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Jon wrote:
>1. Alternative ... primary content
>2. Users need access to all content
>3. All views need to be accessible
>4. A source view is one way to make content available,
> but not the only way it should be made available
>5. Access to the attributes of an element is useful
> and should be easy for the user to obtain.
The problem as I see it is that the definition of "content" includes
"attributes". If we change the definition of content to NOT include
attributes, and define attributes as either used to render the content or
available (i.e., via a source view), then we can re-write and make sense
out of the consensus.
1. Alternative ... primary content
we are not asking for alternative to attributes are we?? - of course
not.
2. Users need access to all content and attributes
3. delete - because not all views are nor can be accessible
and neither are all attributes
some are not used and some are changed
to make a view accessible.
4. A source view is one way to make attributes available,
but not the only way they should be made available,
and the source view (if provided) should always be
an accessible view.
5. Access to the attributes of an element is useful
and should be easy for the user to obtain.
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 13:51:03 UTC