You mean change from IAccessible2 to IUnknown? If so then fine with me since it looks similar to other interfaces. Alex.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Pete Brunet <[email protected]> wrote: > After all our discussion I believe we've reached the point where we can say > the proposal at > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/IA2_1.3#Anchor_target > is accepted. > > However, I don't see a need for IAccessibleDocument to derive from a > super-interface, so I propose that this be changed. > > Pete > > > On 2/21/12 8:46 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote: > > Hi, Pete. > > I liked IAccessibleDocument interface because anchorTarget is > applicable to document accessible and doesn't make huge sense on > IAccessible2. From implementation point of view we would need to get > anchorTarget on document accessible and then check if obtained anchor > target is within an accessible you call this method on. > > Thank you. > Alex. > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Pete Brunet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Jamie, It appears there is not strong preference by anyone for any of > the various options. Your observation about state vs relationship is > interesting and is enough to motivate me to choose a method over a relation. > > Does anyone have any preference regarding whether the anchorTarget method > should reside in IAccessible2_2 or IAccessibleDocument. The latter would be > a new interface with one method. > > Pete > > > On 2/12/12 8:45 PM, James Teh wrote: > > On 10/02/2012 4:13 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: > > so maybe it's OK to have a new interface and method, but I'd like to > get some feed back from others on if a method or relation is preferred. > > It makes sense to use existing mechanisms as much as possible rather than > introducing new methods, so long as those mechanisms fit the proposal and > don't incur performance or other problems. I feel a relation "fits" well > enough here, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight for it if > others disagree. :) I'd pose the question: what makes this so special as to > justify a new method? Why is it more special than, say, flowsTo or > labelledBy? I guess it doesn't fit relations entirely, as it isn't strictly > "related" so much as state information. If that argument is consensus, fair > enough. > > Jamie > > > -- > Pete Brunet > > a11ysoft - Accessibility Architecture and Development > (512) 467-4706 (work), (512) 689-4155 (cell) > Skype: pete.brunet > IM: ptbrunet (AOL, Google), [email protected] (MSN) > http://www.a11ysoft.com/about/ > Ionosphere: WS4G > > _______________________________________________ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 > > > -- > Pete Brunet > > a11ysoft - Accessibility Architecture and Development > (512) 467-4706 (work), (512) 689-4155 (cell) > Skype: pete.brunet > IM: ptbrunet (AOL, Google), [email protected] (MSN) > http://www.a11ysoft.com/about/ > Ionosphere: WS4G > > _______________________________________________ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 > _______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
