W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-hc@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: Some comments on the recent HTML discussion

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:41:20 +0200
Message-Id: <199709221341.PAA14643@www47.inria.fr>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
cc: WAI HC Working Group <w3c-wai-hc@w3.org>
 
> The current spec for HTML 4.0 does go to some lengths to future
> proof media descriptors. It would allow us to refine the braille
> type with modifiers such as "braille online" or "braille 40x60".
> User agents conforming to the current 4.0 spec would see both of
> these as simply "braille". Here an excerpt from the 4.0 spec:

Thanks for pointing that out Dave, I missed it since I focused on the
media definition section (15.1.3) and not the Notes at the end of the
document (27.3.1).

Jason wrote: 

> The HTML specification should first present the rules for correctly
> parsing the MEDIA attribute. These rules were briefly set out in the
> initial draft but have been dropped in the specification itself. 

Is this that the section you were thinking about ?

I think it should be re-integrated in the media section itself and
should be improved like Jason suggests:

> It should then be stated that an HTML user agent should be able to
> recognise the following media types, irrespective of the style
> language being used [list of fundamental base types]. This provision
> is designed to overcome both of the limitations that were discussed
> earlier in this message. The specification would then go on to
> explain that a conforming HTML user agent may recognise additional
> media types, including such new base types, and extensions to
> existing base types, as are defined in the currently active style
> language, or, if supported, the style language which is designated
> by the internet MIME type of the style sheet to which the link
> refers.

Any volunteer for the complete & correct media section working ?

This should include the issue with the default being only applicable
to style and the fact that media isnot clearly defined in the LINK
section but only in the STYLE element section.


> > associated with an "accessibility" key-word. As Daniel has
> > suggested, CLASS may be a better location for the declaration of
> > the type of dictionary (rel="dictionary"  class="abbreviation"). 
> 
> What are the benefits obtained by separating "dictionary" out as a
> distinct term, as compared with say:
> 
>    <LINK rel=abbrev-dict href=abbrev.xml>

We started with REL but then Murray mentioned a proposal separating
"dictionary" out and I thought building on it rather than aside would
be better.

The downside of building on something that itself is not cast and
stone (which I think is the case for REL=dictionary) is that
everything can fall apart if the foundation falls.

Murrau, do you have more details on the status of the generic
DICTIONARY proposal (I think it's part of a more general LINK type
proposal) ? Should we push for it ?

I also think having a separate attrib for the class itself should
simplify any parsing specification we can come up (like for media).

Like Jason, I think that we have to define the base dictionary type
names for HTML4 (much like screen, print, are there for media).
Received on Monday, 22 September 1997 09:41:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:00 UTC