> we can go with VARIANT as we did for object attributes.
>
> I'm not sure this makes sense. Do you mean standard constants would be
> numeric and custom ones would be strings?
yes
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM, James Teh wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 5:31 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>>>
>>> Using st
On 10/10/2012 5:31 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
Using strings [for IAccessibleAction]
is a touch more expensive, but it's negligible and more extensible.
we can go with VARIANT as we did for object attributes.
I'm not sure this makes sense. Do you mean standard constants would be
numeric and cus
>> Btw, I would prefer doAction taking a BSTR rather than negative
>> constant. Otherwise we should standardize all possible actions and we
>> don't leave a room for the server to introduce non-standard actions.
>
> This requires a new method (and thus a new interface), which was the main
> reason
On 10/10/2012 5:07 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
It seems [introducing actions for editable text operations] doesn't answer why
we can't turn out the whole
IAccessibleEditableText interface into actions.
I agree and tend to think this is the way forward.
Btw, I would prefer doAction taking a BS
Hi, Jamie. Answering inline.
>> 5) "Document that copyText, cutText, and pasteText are deprecated."
>> Can you please refresh me on it? The reason specified is "This
>> function is available via the application's GUI." but it seems it can
>> be applied to the whole IAccessibleEditableText interfac
