Re: [office-accessibility] Proposal. mediaObject element.

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 05/03/06, Nathaniel S Borenstein <nborenst@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> One question:
>
> "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 03/03/2006 04:01:32 AM:
>
>  > <define name="med-mediaobject">
>  >   <element name="med:mediaObject">
>  >     <oneOrMore>
>  >       <ref name="med-imageobject"/>
>  >       <ref name="med-textobject"/>
>  >       <ref name="med-audioobject"/>
>  >       <ref name="med-videoobject"/>
>  >     </oneOrMore>
>  >   </element>
>  > </define>
>
> Is there an implication here that there is a preferred order of viewing,
> e.g. that one should use the video object preferentially when the user can
> handle multiple of the "oneOrMore" objects?

No. My intent was,
at least one,
more than one if needed
order not important.

My proposal does not say that. Sorry.

<define name="med-mediaobject">
  <element name="med:mediaObject">
    <interleave>
      <optional><ref name="med-imageobject"/></optional>
      <optional><ref name="med-textobject"/></optional>
      <optional><ref name="med-audioobject"/></optional>
      <optional><ref name="med-videoobject"/></optional>
    </interleave>
  </element>
</define>

This does, but leaves

<med:mediObject/>

as a valid option.

I guess the gui can guarantee that at least one media
is entered? If not, I'd suggest Schematron validation
or the Sun embedded validator.


Thanks for the catch Nathaniel.

regards

--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk