Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 to say "write access only for that which you can do through the UI."

hi

At 5:26 AM 2/11/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>The DOM event model is an ongoing discussion in the WAI/PF. We are going to
>submit requirements to the DOM working group regarding the event model for
>DOM 3 in March.


can somone point me to where this *discussion* is taking place within
WAI/PF???   I would very much like to be apart of this...

who are "we" when you say "We are going to submit requirements to the DOM
working group"


>The reason I put it at P2 was because DOM 2 is not out yet. I also share
>some device independence issues regarding the DOM 2 event model.
>
>If some developers could start adopting the DOM 2 event model, it should
>reduce the time it would take to get the desired DOM 3 event model
>implemented and also ATs would have something to go from.

at present, I'd encourage developers to avoid the event model of DOM 2,
assuming of course something more useable and robust appears for DOM 3, which
would probably save the developers both development cost and grief!



>We ought to be pushing for P1 with DOM 3 in the UA assuming the correct
>changes are made between the DOM and PF working groups.

it is unrealistic to push any priority over a document or spec. that isn't
even yet written in my opinion.

mark


>menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 02/10/2000 10:15:30 AM
>
>To:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita"
>      <unagi69@concentric.net>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
>      Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
>cc:   User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, WAI
>      Protocols & Formats WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
>Subject:  Re: PROPOSAL: User Agent Issue 190: Reduce the scope of 5.1 to
>      say   "write  access only for that which you can do through the UI."
>
>
>
>
>hi Jon and all
>
>I agree that all elements ought to understand and implement
>the appropriate event model, so for the UA, I don't see my
>next comment changing the UA process at the moment.
>
>However, I'm not in favor of making this a priority 1, since I'm not
>a fan of the event model within DOM 2.  This is an on-going
>(I hope ) discussion on the PF/DOM working group lists.
>
>After the events/event model are understood, this checkpoint
>may need re-visiting.
>
>mark
>
>At 8:55 AM 2/10/00, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>>It seems there is a consensus to merge 5.3 and 5.5 from my proposal into a
>>single checkpoint of at least Priority 2 and maybe a priority 1 level.
>The
>>new checkpoint would require implementation of the event model specified
>in
>>the Candidate Recommendation of DOM2 for all elements.
>>
>>Jon

Received on Friday, 11 February 2000 09:46:47 UTC