- From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 02:20:05 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Charles Belov <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Fantasai, would you like to follow-up on Charles' updated proposal "user-agent should announce the nesting depth of list items in some implementation-specific manner"? Or do you mean by "have the option of formatting them differently" that you recommend completely removing the "nesting depth" requisite, and not requiring any additional speech output than the list item marker itself? Obviously we could consider an additional CSS-Speech property to allow authors to toggle on/off structural announcements (i.e. speech output not directly inferred by document text), but I'm not sure this is a good idea given the wide array of possible cue combinations that can be generated when navigating list / table structures. Thanks! Dan On 8 Jun 2011, at 18:26, Belov, Charles wrote: > fantasai wrote on Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:27 AM >> On 06/08/2011 03:49 PM, Daniel Weck wrote: >>> >>> On 8 Jun 2011, at 02:17, fantasai wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/07/2011 05:27 PM, Daniel Weck wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I added: >>>>> "For hierarchical lists structures, it is recommended that >>>>> user-agents announce the nesting depth of list items." >>>>> >>>>> ...which I think is loose-enough to cover various begin/end >>>>> announcement styles for list items. >>>> >>>> Per RFC 2119, that is not a very loose statement. I do not >> think this >>>> belongs in the spec as a normative recommendation. An >> example, maybe, >>>> but not such a strong requirement. >>> >>> The statement per say is not loose (it is effectively a SHOULD >>> conformance requirement), but the formulation "announce the >> nesting depth" offers scope for implementation-specific >> variants. Is this problematic ? >> >> What makes you think that this is *absolutely* the *right* >> way to present lists? That the UA and the user should not >> have the option of formatting them differently? >> > > How about "indicate the nesting depth in some manner," which > implies even more flexibility. I do think it is important > to indicate the nesting depth in some manner, to the SHOULD > level. Otherwise a list such as the following, admittedly > contrived but certainly possible, could be difficult to follow. > > I. blah > II. blah > 1. blah > 2. blah > III. blah > 1. blah > 2. blah > i. blah > ii. blah > 3. blah > IV. blah > 1. blah > 2. blah > i. blah > ii. blah > 3. blah > i. blah > ii. blah > iii. blah > 4. blah > V. blah > > I don't believe anything in the statement precludes the UA or user > from formatting it differently.
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 01:20:45 UTC