Re: gtkhtml2 vs. gtkhtml1

On 18 Sep 2002, Michael Meeks wrote:

> > CSS is very helpful for accessibility, but there are other ways of
> > reformatting.
> 	I couldn't agree more; there should be no need for access to the DOM if
> we can provide good accessible interfaces for the document. Indeed,
> having the DOM tree in parallel to the Atk tree seems to cause far more
> trouble than it's worth, and a far more limited set of information to
> boot. Oh, and then we'd need a CORBA interface for the DOM for it to be
> useful to AT vendors.

I don't see a problem with CORBA interface - W3 publishes IDL for all of
the DOM reccomendations alongside java and ecmascript bindings. The same
applies to access to and modification of style (CSS) information in DOM2.

> > However the w3c accessibility User Agent Guidelines require that DOM be
> > made available by HTML and similar content viewing agents.
> 	The question is - is that a sensible requirement; and does it fit in
> with the way Gnome a11y works ? or is that a minimum requirement for
> things that have no other form of accessible interface.

I think one question here is - what happens if the page is not static but
dynamic and being operated on via say the DOM bindings? (Be it then from
C, or ecmascript or python or something else entirely).

> > Perhaps a future solution would be to use a gecko or Moz=based viewer
> > for such content in "accessibility" cases.
> 	Ultimately it's a huge, long term (and profoundly unnecessary to my way
> of thinking) task, so - it would seem that the minor task of providing a
> DOM interface to FooHtmlRenderer is small in comparison ;-)
> 	Regards,
> 		Michael.
> -- 
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-devel-list mailing list
> gnome-devel-list gnome org


	This is the place where all
	the junkies go	
	where time gets fast
	but everything gets slow

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]