Ok, so here's a change [1]. Looking for your feedback. Thanks! Alexander. [1] http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=a11y/ia2.git;a=commitdiff;h=85deaf1a1514f0c5e6a59e8c9b6606abfb6e6813
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Andres Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Alex and Jamie: > > > > >>> > > I'm good to keep that out of box for now as long as we do a generic > approach so later we can update just docs. > > Andres, what do you think? > > How we are going to proceed with active/anchor boundaries? Let's move with > a proper naming vs one extra member? > > <<< > > > > > > Agree with Alex that we should get the method signature as generic as > possible, so that we don’t have to change it later. But we can have the > first implementation focusing on the text only case and make sure it works > well there, since this is the case that motivated the addition of the new > method. I believe we’ll find that it will be easily extensible to selection > of objects in a container. Also agree to renaming the member vars to > anchorOffset/activeOffset, or Index instead of offset. As for range > boundaries, I like to follow the convention in C++ ranges and many other > ranges where the start is inclusive and the end is exclusive. For instance, > in the string “abc”, range (0,1) = “a”, range (2,3) = “c”, range > (0,lengthof(“abc”)) = “abc”, etc. range (x,x) is an empty or degenerated > range for any x and means no selection. > > > > Best regards, > > > > --Andres. > > > > *From:* Alexander Surkov [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:35 AM > *To:* James Teh > *Cc:* Andres Gonzalez; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] a new method to retrieve the selection > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:12 PM, James Teh <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/11/2015 12:28 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote: > > > > I guess it isn't an edge case after all. I was originally confused by > using child indexes in the case of no text, as this seems strange to me. > > > > I'm not sure where we are on this idea. Do you think we'd rather drop it? > > Personally, I'd rather have a separate mechanism to deal with selected > objects in a container. I think it's just going to get too confusing > otherwise. > > > > I'm good to keep that out of box for now as long as we do a generic > approach so later we can update just docs. > > Andres, what do you think? > > How we are going to proceed with active/anchor boundaries? Let's move with > a proper naming vs one extra member? > > > > > > I don't really follow this. As I understand it, selection starts are > inclusive and selection ends are exclusive. So, why are we talking about > "before" a child? If you have 4 children and children 2 and 3 are selected, > IMO, the start offset should be 1 (the selection starts at the second > child) and the end offset should be 3 (the selection ends after the third > child). Maybe this is just terminology; it doesn't really matter so long as > we agree on the numbers. :) > > > > I'm not sure I have clear understanding how values differs for inclusive > and exclusive end boundaries. Can you give me please an example for, say, > when a container has one child and it is selected, i.e selection starts > before it and ends after it? > > The way I think of text (and maybe this is wrong visually), if you have > the string "a" and you select it, the selection starts *at* the "a" and > ends *after* it. So, in that case, start would be 0 and end would be 1. > Similarly, if you have just one child, start would be 0 and end would be 1. > I have a feeling we're actually talking about the same thing, but you see > the seleciton as starting "before", not "at". > > Jamie > > > -- > > James Teh > > Executive Director, NV Access Limited > > Ph +61 7 3149 3306 > > www.nvaccess.org > > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess > > Twitter: @NVAccess > > SIP: [email protected] > > >
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
