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

RE: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: proposal 3: checkpoint 3.3

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 07:47:06 +0200
To: <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c35f02$d8fae340$ad00000a@patirsrv.patir.com>

Requiring  use of a publicly available lexicon designed for simple
language, and use each word according to its definition, is a special
case of recommending a controlled language, or at least very close to
it. I think we are all on the same page, drawing the same line, but
perhaps in different places -  do we want to be more flexible and user
friendly for the author or more useful to user agents.
 We can probably be both with the right wording..

All the best
Lisa Seeman
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:19 AM
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: lisa seeman; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: [lexical (+ contextual) clarification] Re: proposal 3:
checkpoint 3.3

If there were an extended checkpoint or success criterion that said:

A controlled language is used.

Surely that would be testable, for it could be determined whether the
author has consistently abided by rules governing vocabulary and syntax
that are intended to enhance comprehension. The guidelines need not,
and, I would argue, should not prescribe those rules relative to any
given natural language or type of content; references to applicable
standards could then be given in techniques.

Independently of the question whether there should be an extended
checkpoint specifying the use of a "controlled language", I think there
is little doubt that it could be made testable, its being required that
(1) there exist a standard or other definition of a controlled language
to which the content author has decided to conform; and (2) the content
does in fact conform to it.

In fact it might even be machine testable if there is a generative
grammar for the required syntax and a list of permissible vocabulary;
and before anybody asks, it is a fundamental insight of modern
linguistics, as I understand it, that the syntax of every natural
language can be described by a generative grammar.
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2003 01:53:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:45 UTC