- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:52:26 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Ian, Looks good to me. Thanks for the clarification. Jon At 05:23 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: >Ray, UAWG, > >At yesterday's teleconference [1], we discussed the issue the DOM >WG raised (issue 545 [2]) about programmatic access to state >information. We resolved to: > > "Add a note to the Guidelines indicating that DOM 2 Core may not > provide all information in an HTML Doc and that implementers > should track the maturation of DOM 2 HTML Module which is > expected to provide access to that information." > >However, in light of further discussions with Jon Gunderson, >Philippe Le Hegaret, and Ray Whitmer, I wish to propose further >clarifications to checkpoints 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.6 that I think >address the issue more completely. > >I believe that it has been the UAWG's intent to provide >information to this state information. Provision three of UAAG >1.0 [3] checkpoint 6.1 (Programmatic access to HTML/XML infoset) >reads: > > "If the user can modify HTML and XML content ("write access") > through the user interface (e.g., through form controls), allow > for the same modifications programmatically." > >Ray explained to me that, at least in the DOM WG's model, user >interactions (e.g., through form controls) do not modify the >content (i.e., the DOM tree). They change the "state" or "current >values" of the content. I believe (but am not absolutely certain) >that the XForms model is the same. > >Therefore, I propose that we make two clarifications: > > a) When we talk about write access, we mean the ability > to make the same state changes. > b) We also require read access to state values, not just > write access. I believe that such read access has been > implied by the other "read" provisions in > checkpoints 6.1 and 6.3. > ><PROPOSAL> > > 1) Modify checkpoint 6.1, provision 3 to read: > > <new> > If the user can modify the state of HTML and XML content > ("write access") through the user interface (e.g., through > form controls), allow programmatic read access to > current values, and allow for the same modifications > programmatically. > </new> > > 2) Make the same kind of change to checkpoint 6.3 (for > non-HTML/XML content), provision 1: > > <old> > For content other than HTML and XML, provide structured > programmatic read access to content, and write access to > those parts of content that the user can modify through the > user interface. > </old> > > Split into two: > > <new provision 1> > For content other than HTML and XML, provide structured > programmatic read access to content. > </new provision 1> > > <new provision 2> > If the user can modify the state of content other than HTML > and XML ("write access") through the user interface, > allow programmatic read access to current values, > and allow for the same modifications programmatically. > </new provision 2> > > 3) Add a Note to checkpoint 6.2 that reads: > > Note: "The DOM Level 2 Core Specification does not provide > access to state (current values) required by checkpoint 6.1, > provision 3. The DOM Level 2 HTML Module [DOM2HTML] > is expected to provide access to this information. > > 4) Clarify provision 1 of checkpoint 6.6: > > "Provide programmatic notification of changes to content, > user agent user interface controls, selection, content > focus, and user interface focus." > > to read: > > "Provide programmatic notification of changes to content and > content state, user agent user interface controls, selection, > content focus, and user interface focus." ></PROPOSAL> > >I believe this proposal clarifies, but does not change >substantially, the intention of the document. I think it aligns >us more closely with the DOM WG's model. > >Furthermore, this proposal satisfies part of the DOM WG's >suggestion: > > "These states might prove significant for an accessibility > agent." > >This proposal does not add a requirement to implement the DOM >HTML module because (1) DOM Level 1 HTML is broken, (2) DOM Level >2 HTML is not yet a W3C Recommendation, and (3) it is late in the >game for UAAG 1.0 to add such a requirement. > >Finally, there is implementation experience for read/write access >to this state information, part of the DOM since "Level 0". > >Please comment on this proposal. Thank you, > > _ Ian > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0141 >[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-lc4#545 >[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-UAAG10-20020821/ > > >-- >Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 718 260-9447 Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services MC-574 College of Applied Life Studies University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: (217) 244-5870 Fax: (217) 333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 09:46:40 UTC