W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Semantic pragmatic

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 23:30:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
cc: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107012325310.18810-100000@tux.w3.org>
Yes, some people are not sure how literal they are being, and some others
know, but don't think it is worth noting. Humour is probably a bad example
though - it is very often intrinsically inaccessible, and even more often not
everyone sees the funny side.

Designating writing styles or audience is a useful thing to do, but even so
there are things that can be done to go beyond this, and providing
alternatives for non-literal text seems to me to be a valuable one to
explore.

Charles

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Thanasis Kinias wrote:
[snip]
  Most English is very idiomatic, in ways that native speakers really do not
  comprehend most of the time, especially those with low literacy levels.  In
  fact, most people, it seems, would write "put up with" instead of "tolerate,"
[snip]
  Also, in some writing, a certain intentional vagueness of meaning is part of
  the communication -- humour is frequently based on such things.  And one
  can't really mark up humour.

  Some means of designating mode of writing (e.g., Brussels bureaucratic
  English versus Douglas Adams [R.I.P.] versus American creative-writing
  textbook) might be useful, but that really falls under the markup folks'
  purview.
[snip]
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2001 23:31:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT