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 all

At 9:53 AM 2/14/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>This is why we were pushing the DOM2 event model as P2.

in my opinion, the UA group should leave the guildlines as
they are, referring only to DOM or DOM 1, as it may be.  Then
when the later releases of DOM are completed, the Tech DOC
can refer to them, as it undoubtedly will.

to refer to the current piece-meal event model in DOM 2
is not only a bad idea, it is misleading to developers since
the model isn't complete.  if makes no sense to me to
rally support in the AT community for a spec that is as
poor as DOM 2 event model currently stands.


>It is unrealistic to expect the DOM WG to scrap their entire event model
>for accessibility. We should be able to improve upon it in terms of device
>independence. Having people start developing to the DOM 2 event model will
>not require them to rewrite the whole thing.

No one on this list, as I've read, has suggested any such thing.  The
i18n group put a serious issue to the DOM  group, much as the PF
group did, and the event model that remained in DOM 2 is not very
robust.

If the event model were removed from DOM, as I've suggested, then
having people follow the incomplete DOM 2 model may require
rewrites.   I'm hoping that those decisions are still being considered
and thus why the UA should not act on DOM 2/3 at this time.

>I do appreciate your concerns.

thanks, but continuing to push DOM 2/3 with the UA is not helping, in my
opinion.

mark


>Rich
>
>
>Rich Schwerdtfeger
>Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
>EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
>
>"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
>I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
>Frost
>
>
>menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 02/11/2000 08:49:49 AM
>
>To:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>cc:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita"
>      <unagi69@concentric.net>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>,
>      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
>
>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 Tuesday, 15 February 2000 11:34:39 UTC