- From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:30:51 +0200
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
> >> Checkpoint 3.5 > >> > >> "Authors (and Webmasters) should use the redirect mechanisms of HTTP > >> instead of client-side redirects." > >> > >> I'm not sure what this means. is <meta http-equiv="..." /> a redirect > >> mechanism of HTTP? > > No, that's browser-specific behavior that is not the same > as an HTTP redirect. And yet HTML 4 says: "The http-equiv attribute can be used in place of the name attribute and has a special significance when documents are retrieved via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). HTTP servers may use the property name specified by the http-equiv attribute to create an [RFC822]-style header in the HTTP response." So http-equiv is *intended* to affect how servers respond. In other words, according to HTML 4 <meta http-equiv ...> *is* "using the redirect mechanisms of HTTP"! So I think the wording needs to be tightened up to cover the real intention, and preferably without mention of the method used for the redirection (for instance HLink allows redirects without use of http-equiv). If I understand it, if a document is *immediately* redirected (because it has been moved or whatever) all is well; if a document is periodically refreshed, or redirected after a time delay, then the user needs to be consulted first. I think that this is a better approach also because HTTP redirects allow you to refresh periodically too, and the user needs a say then as well. > >> Checkpoint 11.4 > >> Would an emacs-like method of typing "escape" to go into single-key mode, > >> and then letting you type a single single-key be allowable here? > > Yes. > > >> Or do you > >> have to be able to toggle into and out of single-key mode explicitely? I > >> couldn't tell. > > I don't think we have much more detail on this; what problem > do you see that is not solved? Well, some people might see esc-p for "print" as a two-key binding, yet you say it is acceptable as an interpretation of single-key binding: "A single-key binding is one where a single key press performs the task, with zero modifier keys. Sufficient techniques The user agent may satisfy the requirements of provision two of this checkpoint with a "single-key mode" (i.e., a mode where the current bindings are replaced by a set of single-key bindings)." So sentence one says "single key press" and the last sentence allows two key presses, so there may be some confusion about conformance (well, there is, because I wasn't sure). Maybe the issue here is modifier keys, rather than number of key presses, but I leave it to you to describe. Best wishes, Steven
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 04:31:10 UTC