Re: Proposal for Checkpoint 2.1 (content vs. attributes)

>..., 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.

AG::

On the one hand...

Sometimes the _alternative_ to some include-by-reference 'content' such as
that referenced in the 'src' attribute of an IMG element, is some
include-as-attribute 'content' like the value of the 'alt' attribute.  The
_alternative_ relationships are somewhat scrambled in the syntax.  They
don't all follow a common pattern in terms of how they appear in the syntax.

And we are not demanding that there _be_ alternatives to lots of the
content-in-the-narrow-sense.  So the fact that something is a choice among
one-alternative-only does not make it different from a lot of stuff that is
clearly content.

...on the other hand...

PJ::

>2. Users need access to all content and attributes

AG::

Perhaps more readers would understand what we are saying right away if we
were to say it in this way.

The important thing is that the User Agent expose everything in due course.
 Whether we use the term 'content' for everything, or for just what is not
markup, could work either way.

Al

>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 22:36:13 UTC