Jamie, Andres, all could you please to take a look at the proposal and comment it out here? Thanks! Alex.
[1] http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=a11y/ia2.git;a=commitdiff;h=85deaf1a1514f0c5e6a59e8c9b6606abfb6e6813 On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Alexander Surkov < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
