W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Access Key alternative -in the wrong place?

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:23 +0300
To: 'Richard Schwerdtfeger' <schwer@us.ibm.com>, 'Lisa Seeman' <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Cc: 'Becky Gibson' <gibsonb@us.ibm.com>, 'Jon Gunderson' <jongund@uiuc.edu>, 'Liddy Nevile' <Liddy.Nevile@motile.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Message-id: <001601c467f4$68190d90$340aa8c0@lisaibm>

Also, I hope this is not intentional, but it would be good if we did not
have UB in front of things that would be W3C specific. Also, we already
have role so why are you now inserting contenttype. Lets be consistent.
I am not going to go back to the HTML working group to do a name change
for role. 

 Another concern that is growing for me is RDF. One of the problems we
are faced with on RDF is that NO browser supports it. Mozilla has some
support but 

[Lisa Taking these points together
 re: referring to a non W3C namespace -  a lot of W3C specifications I
have seen give examples pointing to example namespaces such as  the DC
namespace. no brake from convention -   it is what name spaces are for.
 Firstly -  You can use role in XHTML to point to a content type that is
defined in the UB or other  schema. You can likewise reference to a W3C
defined roles. It doesn't mater. a role can refer to a content type,
A real point is that I think roles themselves, - not as role in XHTML
but the definition that the role refers too. 
Defining the roles in RDF does not require browser support or make the
HTML more complicated[Lisa: ] . 
 They simply reference the type of content  using a  Qname 
I pointed to the UB schema because we define roles  using  RDF/OWL   and
I think this is important.
Using RDF to define the roles means :
If  describe the cases or types of content in RDF, we make
programmatically explicit the relationship between different classes and
types of content.
In making a description for each type obligatory (using OWL) we allow
for anyone to access - in plain English (or French Spanish, Dutch...)
-what the content type is meant to represent.
It allows us to miss out some definitions of content types without there
being the least loss to the implementation or the speciation. Defining
types as sub classes and type instances in RDF allows us to add new ones
at any time
Maybe I am just more used to making mistakes then others, but I would
bet we will never have the full model of types of content found on
websites - that is why the definition of types or roles needs to be done
in a programmatically meaningful, extendible ,  way. 
Because content types are not limited to thoughs that the W3C defined,
web communities can have there own, derived, content types. For example
IMPS and  educational content typically use  :
tutor, help, glossary, back, up, next
If the user agent is only familiar with the base classes, then it can
handle a derived class the same way it would handle it's parent. However
educational tools would have a special features for a derived schema
created by the IMS educational content consortium.
They can sit on the IMS website, or a government agency or UB access
site or even IBM -it doesn't mater.
One of the many reasons to love RDF (That reminds me a  song)
Rich - am i responding to a cross posting thread?
keep well
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 05:41:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC