Sure, Rich.

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
<[email protected]>wrote:

> Is that a range containing only embedded characters?
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> CTO Accessibility Software Group
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Alexander Surkov ---05/19/2010 07:39:53
> AM---Hi, guys. One more question.]Alexander Surkov ---05/19/2010 07:39:53
> AM---Hi, guys. One more question.
>
>
>     *Alexander Surkov <[email protected]>*
>             Sent by: [email protected]
>
>             05/19/2010 07:38 AM
>
>
> To
>
> James Teh <[email protected]>
> cc
>
> IAccessible2 mailing list <[email protected]>,
> Rob Gallo <[email protected]>
> Subject
>
> Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Fwd: text attribute range calculation
> Hi, guys. One more question.
>
> Should we expose any text attributes for a range containing embedded
> characters? I lean towards to think we should return empty string for
> text attributes since text attributes makes sense for normal text
> only.
>
> Thank you.
> Alex.
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Alexander Surkov
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ok, thanks James. I'll come with Rob's approach, then I will send try
> > Firefox build to Orca developers to check if performance is good
> > enough.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, James Teh <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 18/05/2010 11:52 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> >>> Aaron suggestion was like [*plain*plain**)[bold*bold*), which I come
> here with.
> >> This is the most complicated and potentially confusing, but also the
> >> least expensive for out-of-process clients. Have you had any feedback
> >> from the Orca devs on this?
> >>
> >>> Your suggestion was [*)[plain)[*)[plain)[**)[bold)[*)[bold)[*).
> >> I like this solution most in that it is still quite logical without
> >> incurring the unnecessary overhead of having separate ranges for every
> >> embedded object character.
> >>
> >>> My last suggestion (based on your suggestion) was
> >>> [*)[plain)[*)[plain)[*)[*)[bold)[*)[bold)[*).
> >>> [This] suggestion is quicker supposedly if
> >>> we don't think about method call cost
> >> I assume you mean quicker on the app side? I don't think it would ever
> >> be quicker on the AT side.
> >>
> >> Jamie
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Teh
> >> Vice President
> >> NV Access Inc, ABN 61773362390
> >> Email: [email protected]
> >> Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>

<<graycol.gif>>

<<ecblank.gif>>

_______________________________________________
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2

Reply via email to