Technically we could create IAccessibleAttribute which is the pair of name/value strings and return array of IAccessibleAttribute objects. It should be a bit more nice than "name:value" strings. Btw, do we need to have localizedAttributeName like we have for relations?
Alex. On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Pete Brunet <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the input. How is this then? > > Create IA2_2 > - remove: attributes > - add: > - HRESULT attributeValue ([in] BSTR name, [out, retval] BSTR *value) > - HRESULT attributes ([out, size_is(,*nAttributes)] BSTR **attributes, > [out, retval] long *nAttributes) > where the return values are in the form "name:value" > > Is it bad form to use the same name, i.e. "attributes", for a replaced > method? Should I name it something like "attributeList"? > > IAText2 would have the same changes. > > IA2 and IAText with their attributes method would be deprecated but still > useful until everyone gets a chance to switch over. > > Pete > --- > Alexander Surkov wrote: > > Hi. > > I think in general it's enough to have a method that returns attribute > value by its name. The method that returns an array of all attributes > is more helpful for debugging rather than in real life I assume > (please correct me if I'm wrong) to see what attributes are exposed at > all. But any way I think it should be nice to have method like this. > > So we could add these methods into the spec, servers will implement > it, clients can start to use them in future when servers will achieve > the status of official current version. > > Alex. > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, James Teh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 23/10/2009 2:04 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: > > > We can add the following to IA2::attribute and IAText::attribute: > HRESULT ([in] BSTR name, [out, retval] BSTR *value) > > > This looks good. Note, however, that this would require a new interface > due to the new method. > > > > Is an array of attributes also needed or should we stick with the > existing method which returns a multi-attribute string and thus the > required parsing? > > > The array is probably cleaner and more "correct" (no string parsing, > handling escapes, etc.), but having said that, multiple ATs (including > NVDA) already rely heavily on the old behaviour. This may be one of > those cases where it's simpler to leave it alone. Having said that, I'd > certainly be happy with an array. > > Jamie > > -- > James Teh > Email/MSN Messenger/Jabber: [email protected] > Web site: http://www.jantrid.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 > > _______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
