- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 20:22:04 -0400
- To: pjenkins@us.ibm.com
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote: > > Phill wrote: > > 1. Alternative ... primary content > > we are not asking for alternative to attributes are we?? - of course > > not. > > Ian wrote: > >I don't understand your statement. > > If we define content to include attributes, then the statement: > > 1. Alternative equivalents should be available through the User Interface > > in place of or in conjunction with primary content > > would also mean "alternative equivalents to attributes should be available > through the User Interface in place of or in conjunction with the primary > attributes" - which no longer makes sense. I was just substituting the > word "attribute" for the word "content", since attribute is currently part > of the definition of content. If attribute we NOT part of the definition, > then I couldn't substitute the words. My point being that when I > substitute the word "attribute" for the word "content", many of our > statements no longer make sense - hence my request to delete attributes > from the definition of content. I don't think the straightforward substitution works because it necessarily excludes other pieces of the puzzle. Access to equivalents means equivalents however they are specified: by attribute values (alt), by reference (longdesc), in content (OBJECT), in HTTP headers, etc. Choosing one piece without the others is likely to lead to some incomplete statements. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 20:23:13 UTC