W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re[2]: FW: acronym in title...

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:09:19 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030314143020.07846418@localhost>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <ishida@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

At 18:07 03/03/13 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:

>At 04:37 PM 2003-03-13, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>At 09:57 03/03/13 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:

>>>I think that the one thing I should add right away is that there
>>>is an option using "annotation" techniques to leave the attribute as is
>>>and introduce a higher-quality equivalent through a structure which
>>>refers to the attribute.
>>
>>I agree that this is an option in principle, but for the things
>>we are considering (<span xml:lang='...'>, ruby,...), it seems
>>like an enormous overhead.
>
>And there are more things that need doing than you are considering.  And
>somewhere along that line the preference for how to do it may flop over.

Yes, definitely. The more something applies in more than one place,
for example, and the more it is part of one specific rendering rather
than the 'original' text, the more sense it makes to put it offline
rather than inline.


>It's not clear which way the overhead is greater.  A 'span' on each instance
>could be much more size overhead when compared with a single glossary entry.
>But the latter is more risky because it is more indirect.

The risk depends on how the items are matched. In Chales'
examples, if the author of that page edits the title, the
annotation still starts at character 19, but no longer at
the right word.


>I am trying very hard not to prejudge the choice, here, because in a
>migration strategy for an incompatible change I believe that there is a
>place for more than one way of doing things, and that we should not rush to
>judgement on how it is to be done.

My current judgement is that we need both:
- Better ways for inline annotation, not limited due to the fact that
   some things are in attributes when they shouldn't.
- New (or better established) ways to link to glossaries and similar
   stuff.


>As I said at the end of the day Wednesday, what I am hoping the community
>will develop is better discernment about when to use which manner of
>annotation, inline and offline.  Markup is inline annotation.

I think the community implicitly already has quite a good understanding
of that distinction. On average, and for purely practical (but very
important) reasons, inline markup seem to have performed much better
in most cases, but there are good cases for offline stuff, too
(in particular stylesheets).

Regards,   Martin.



  
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 16:30:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT