- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 26 Feb 2003 19:49:02 -0500
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 12:38, Jon Gunderson wrote: > The following page is Jon Gunderson initial set of comments on the XHTML > 2.0 31 January 2003 working draft. > http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2003/02/xhtml2-comments.html > > We can talk about this at tomorrows UA teleconference. Hi Jon, As I may not be able to attend, I'll make a few comments on yours, which I thought were good. 1) Add definition for "selected". UAAG 1.0 works hard to distinguish focus from selection. I am wary of any definition of "selected" that includes "focus". In general, I think we need to work with the HTML WG on their focus and selection models. 2) I recommend augmenting each of your points with a reference to the UAAG 1.0 checkpoint that backs it up. 3) 8.9 heading elements. Yes to outline view, but navigation should be possible for "important elements." What will help us is if the HTML WG identifies the "important elements" for navigation in its spec. That will make a good fit with UAAG 1.0 requirements. 4) 11.1 AREA element. I prefer to delete AREA entirely, in favor of a rich content model where A elements (or "anything" in XHTML 2.0) can be links with associated regions. 5) I'm not sure I understand "Users should be notified of the availability of forward and reverse links." I am not sure why notification is required. What checkpoint drives this one? "Users should be able to activate [these] links." Upon configuration? 6) User preferences. Are your comments about other software inheriting preferences? For "some types of OBJECT content"; UAAG 1.0 supports that if it's specifically audio, video, and animations. I recommend being specific. 7) The table rendering algorithm of xhtml 2.0 is not normative; I suspect a linear algo would not be normative either. I think the user should be able to configure which content to use for headers. - Ian
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:49:19 UTC