Thread Subject: Re: Definition of Web Content

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Jun 26 2007 7:05 AM

I concur.
Previously I was just attempting to at a minimum nail down to as much
precision as possible, what we generally do mean by "web" content.

Maybe web content is:

Content interpreted by a user-agent which also interprets HTML,
including content interpreted and presented to the user by plug-ins
seamlessly.

Conversely:

Non-web content is:

Content that is interpreted and presented to the user by applications
which do not also interpret HTML, excluding plug-ins which do interpret
HTML and present it seamlessly.


I'd like to propose these two as items for consideration to help get our
lines right if web/software are to be kept separated, but would agree
with Andrew that I'm not convinced it makes technical or applicability
sense to do so.




Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:51 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content

No, I don't. There will always be hairs to split, particularly between
these two sections. I don't think that keeping them apart makes sense.

AWK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:43 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> I was not aware of that difference, but I suppose either we can figure

> out a way to work through that oddity, or just say, yeah, that's how
> it is do to architecture. Do you have a suggestion of how to better
> address these two architectures?
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:34 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> You said that pdf wasn't because it was shown in a plugin.
> The same is true of svg in ie, but not in firefox.
> Awk
>
>
> ---
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Corporate Accessibility Engineering Lead
>
> Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> 617.219.2209
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 05:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Definition of Web Content
>
> I think you and i are wrestling with the same questions and problems
> Andrew.
>
> I'm not sure why something "SVG" presented in IE would be different
> than in FireFox, from my earlier definition perspective, since both
> also interpret HTML. I too am trying to convince myself of the
> rationale for not merging web/software. I view "web" as requirements
> for coding primarily HTML items, which is a subset of other software
> and content coding systems. This is why I keep raising my question
> like "why is this restricted to "web"? Web and software are merging
> so quickly now that if we are to have a line, rather than simply
> clearly defined requirements and applicability, then we need to
> clearly draw the line so people can figure it out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
>
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University