Re: Proposed editorial changes based on Aaron Leventhal review

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> Yes, I object. I am proposing to do something different with the same
> information, for the reasons given.
> 
> Also becuase I think it places operational constraints on the User agent that
> may be in line with normal implementation methods but are not actually
> enhancing the accessibility of the user agent, and may detract from it.

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand your point I guess.
I thought the checkpoint has tried to say "Don't do automatic
refreshes". Aaron said that wasn't clear. The proposed rewrite is
supposed to be clearer.

I don't understand what the operational constraints you are talking
about are.

I also didn't understand your technique.

Could you expound further on the source of your objection?
My goal here, mind you, is only editorial clarification, not
alignment with existing implementations, etc.

 - Ian
 
> cheers
> 
> Charles
> 
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 
>   Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>   >
>   > I don't see that there is a problem using the method Aaron suggested. It
>   > would enable a user agent to seperately queue the changes to a document that
>   > gets updated on the fly, which seems like a good thing since they could be
>   > offered to the user who had asked for a page to stay still, as a seperate
>   > item. It might be helpful to have this available, and I  can't see that it
>   > breaks anything we need.
>   >
>   > So I would propose to instead add this as a technique.
> 
>   Would you object to the editorial change?
> 
>    _ Ian
> 
>   >   Reference document 24 Feb 2001 draft [1].
>   >
>   >   1) Checkpoints 3.5/3.5
>   >
>   >      3.5 Allow configuration so that client-side content refreshes
>   >      (i.e., those initiated by the user agent, not the server)
>   >      do not change content except on explicit user request.
>   >
>   >   Aaron suggested that this might be interpreted as meaning
>   >   "compare and see if the refresh changed the content or not".
>   >
>   >   Proposed change:
>   >
>   >      Allow configuration so that the user agent does not
>   >      perform client-side content refreshes (i.e., those
>   >      initiated by the user agent, not the server)
>   >      except on explicit user request.
>   >
>   >   I propose the same type of change to checkpoint 3.6:
>   >
>   > [snip]
> 
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 10:58:09 UTC