Re: wording of Checkpoint 7.5

"Gregory J. Rosmaita" wrote:
> 
> aloha, y'all!
> 
> in reviewing Ian's UA Responsibility document, i was troubled by the
> ambiguity of Checkpoint 7.5, as stated in the 20 december 1999 draft of
> UAGL and the 28 december 1999 draft of the UA Responsibilities document:
> 
> quote
> Checkpoint 7.5 Allow the user to search for rendered text content,
> including text equivalents of visual and auditory content.
>    A. Most user agents do this anyway (except for the alt content part).
>    B. Searching might be considered a minimal form of navigation.
> unquote
> 
> what exactly are we addressing in this checkpoint?  

Searching of rendered text content.

> are we talking about
> OBJECTs _and_ such text-based MLs such as SMIL, SAMI, and SVG, or _just_
> textual equivalents?  

I'm not sure what you mean by "OBJECTs". Do you mean embedded objects
for different content types? I'm not interested in those - only text
content that is rendered.

> therefore, i propose the following re-wording:

To my knowledge, just rendered text.
 
> Checkpoint 7.5 Allow the user to search for textual content, including text
> equivalents for OBJECTs.

I would like to avoid the HTML-specific language. 

> NOTE: Text based visual and auditory formats, such as SMIL, SAMI, and SVG
> are included in this checkpoint, as are the LONGDESC and ALT attributes;
> semantic information contained in TABLE (e.g. SUMMARY, ABBR, SCOPE, etc.)
> and FORM (e.g. LABEL, LEGEND, FIELDSET, etc.) markup; as well as the
> contents of NOSCRIPT and NOFRAMES elements

The examples are good and should go in techniques (if not already
there...)

 _ Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2000 15:57:30 UTC