- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:53:07 -0500
- To: wai-tech-comments@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
In the content guidelines group interchange with the HTML working group on Friday we were talking about the "management of planned change" in the area of the IMG element and reforms to be sought in XHTML 2.0. Josh or someone suggested that OBJECT doesn't always have the content control moves to express what one wants to provide as universal content. I started spouting references to other constructs in other formats, and Gregg said "you may have to write that down and spell it out." So here are some annotated citations which are important for a review of content control in "the future of the web as a medium comprising semi-encoded communication." Rules for user management of show/hide/minimize decisions in the 'final' [mix and] form of content are provided in [the current draft of] the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines[1]. The 'final' form is the form which the content takes in the actual user interface[2]. How 'final' the exchanged form should be is the subject of considerable debate, but there is a provisional agreement within the PF working group on a concept that the working group is striving to capture for the XML GL guidelines on creating XML based accessible applications [member-restricted references only at the moment, public draft in development]. [1] 2. Ensure user access to all content. <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010224/#gl-content-access>http://www. w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010224/#gl-content-access [2] HCI Fundamentals and PWD Failure Modes <http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/ud4grid/#_Toc495220368>http://trace.wisc.edu/do cs/ud4grid/#_Toc495220368 In particular, SMIL 2.0 defines modules devoted to content control[3], and the possible patterns that one can create using SMIL 2.0 content control are more flexible or varied than the content control pattern that is created by a nested family of OBJECT elements in XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01 [4]. Note that up through XHTML 1.1, the behavior of markup in XHTML is strictly derived from the HTML version. This, however, will no longer be true for XHTML 2.x. [3] 4. The SMIL 2.0 Content Control Modules <http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/smil-content.html>http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/ smil-content.html [4] OBJECT <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-OBJECT>http://www.w3 .org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-OBJECT A third area of activity that is important here is the progress of the RUBY markup construct [5]. There are some tensions between the goals in making this transparently obvious as used to control the print rendering of Japanese, and making it broad and flexible so it is a generic content control feature for device-independent content containing words or phrases with non-obvious meanings or pronunciations, as currently encoded with abbreviation or acronym elements [6]. [5] Ruby Annotation <http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/>http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/ [6] w3c-wai-ig@w3.org from January to March 2000: RE: ABBR vs. ACRO[...] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2000JanMar/0610.html>http:/ /lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2000JanMar/0610.html Al
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2001 14:34:19 UTC