W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Tenative meeting on the DOM with AT vendors for the User Agent Guidelines

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:09:41 -0600
Message-Id: <v01540b09b4c8ac8b8e6b@[]>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org
hi Rich and all:

At 1:11 PM 2/1/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>While the application model may not reside in the DOM it is the best place
>to start with the issue given that things like an event model are already
>defined here. It would also be good for you and others to look at what is
>being proposed for DOM 3 and what is in DOM 2, ...

I've read the issue paper you circulated on the PF list a bit ago, "dom3.htm",
I've reviewed the 1/26/00 PF F2F mtg minutes, I'm on the public DOM working
group mail
list, and was intimately involved with the process at the end of DOM2
regarding the device independent events as you recall.  As time allows,
I'm eager and interested in reviewing any proposal surrounding the
future of DOM.

> aside from
>accessibility. There are alot of UI related components in here that are
>extensions to the Core DOM but which are handled by the DOM working group.
>The DOM is being extended to support UIs. My guess is the DOM will end up
>being a kind of layered model where you peel back parts of the onion for
>levels of applicability.

Just because something is "already there", etc., doesn't mean that
it is the best solution, or the only solution.  As the W3C standards evolve,
I would surely hope that as we (W3C) find better ways to do things,  or become
smarter and learn from our mistakes, etc. , that we would have the
opportunity and desire to make the necessary changes for the better.

I never implied that we take years to figure these things out, but the
timing transition from DOM 2 to DOM 3 seems to me like right opportunity
to look again at DOM and future web applications/interfaces.  Should DOM
remain more content or "data" like?  Should it contain "events and views"?
I would hope that the concerns we as the PF group encountered at the end
of the DOM 2 process in regards to our attempt to wedge the device
independent events into DOM 2, and the problems raised/encountered
when working with the other groups that would also adopt that event
model (e.g., SVG, XHTML, etc.), that perhaps we'd realize that maybe the
wedge was not stuck in the proper place.  Furthermore, as I
read the PF F2F mtg minutes, and we again are reminded about the problem with
the key events and the i18n group, maybe that's another clue to rethink
where events really belong in DOM?  I think someone ought to be
asking these questions.

>In any case, the job of this DOM WG editorial team will be to address the
>issues you are raising. As for referring to the DOM or PF working group
>stepping back to look at the issue that is what the editorial team is for.

The team addressing this problem not the issue.   Sending my concerns to
this team is partly what I'm trying to do with this email.

>Furthermore, this is much more than just an accessibility issue and should
>not be confined to a PF work item. This will effect anyone who wishes to
>make pervasive solutions accessible by traditionally considered
>non-disabled users as well. I am rather excited about the opportunity to
>get rid of the differentiation factor.

In recent days I've re-read several of the W3C Technical Reports and
Publications including the HTML guidelines for mobile access, the
CC/PP exchange protocol, the WAP white paper, and the Voice
Browser architectures/issues to name a few.  I've also re-read the
information about the XML scripting of UI interfaces at


which Charles or someone else posted as well as lots of papers and
information at the Mozilla site, like the one Al posted:

XUL and RDF: The Implementation of the Application Object Model
        URL: http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xulrdf.htm

Interesting thing about Dave Hyatt's "XUL and RDF..." article, is how
he talks about the "separation of the Web Application and the Web

The other interesting and subtle trend I'm seeing is towards flexible UIs
which will be created on the fly.  Flexible UI "views" (which doesn't
imply visual only) of the "same data", on a per user need or per device
capability, or both.  This is potentially good news and very definitely *not*
just an accessibility problem".

>I guess my point is that we can sit back and fret about it or solve the
>problem, much the same we all did with Java in Palo Alto 3-4 years ago.

I've also been proposing we (PF) work/provide input to solve this problem.

And since you mentioned it, that Palo Alto meeting held 3-4 years ago
you are referring to concerning Java, hosted by SUN, was in part a report
or presentation of the work people at Trace had completed after
*several months* of research as to what needed to be done for
the common industry goal of building accessibility into Java
from the ground up.   We didn't just meet *once*, and solve all the problems.
Also, I think the success and progress that the team of
developers from SUN, IBM, and others have contributed and made since
that meeting/time speaks for itself.

>I vote for solving the problem. The biggest cat out of the bag is not the
>events in DOM 2 but the fact that all these pervasive devices and some
>important cross-platform user agents are inaccessible.

Yes we have all kinds of devices out there, and yes we want access to all
those devices, including those we have yet to think of and understand.  We are
trying to achieve the same end result, but my comments about what belongs
in DOM, what is added to DOM, and/or how DOM is extended, and how that
perhaps "boxes us into a  corner" in regards to future use of DOM for other
web based applications, I believe are all legitimate concerns.


Received on Thursday, 10 February 2000 16:06:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:25 UTC