Re: gtkhtml2 vs. gtkhtml1
- From: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>
- To: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- Cc: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik sun com>, Radek Doulík <rodo ximian com>, GNOME Devel <gnome-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gtkhtml2 vs. gtkhtml1
- Date: 19 Sep 2002 14:15:20 +0100
On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 11:06, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 13:42, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > > 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).
> What happens in any case where things that have AtkObjects associated
> with them are manipulated - created, destroyed, renamed etc.?
> This is of course a very common occurence during the construction /
> destruction of GUIs, and thus we have to support it in atk, by various
> means of signalling tree hierarchy changes.
Yep, we handle this reasonably well now I believe.
> Since we effectively provide a sort of 'DOM' via the Atk system, it
> seems particularly pointless to waste a huge amount of time creating
> another parallel-but-different way to do so, since it cannot (shouldn't)
> add anything useful that Atk+ doesn't do.
But a "sort of DOM" is not w3c DOM, which is what the w3c UAG requires.
> mmeeks gnu org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
] [Thread Prev