W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1999

RE: xml?[Fwd: News or idle rumor?]

From: Waddell, Cynthia <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:43:27 -0700
Message-ID: <3EC0FC2EAE6AD1118D5100AA00DCD8830345AA0F@sj-exchange.ci.sj.ca.us>
To: "'uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu'" <uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu>, Dan Rogers <danro@MICROSOFT.COM>
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Al,
Thank you for your comments.

Cynthia D. Waddell

---------------------------------------------------
Cynthia D. Waddell   
ADA Coordinator
City Manager Department
City of San Jose, CA USA
801 North First Street, Room 460
San Jose, CA  95110-1704
(408)277-4034
(408)971-0134 TTY
(408)277-3885 FAX
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/webcast/cynthia.htm
http://www.aasa.dshs.wa.gov/access/waddell.htm 



-----Original Message-----
From: Al Gilman [mailto:asgilman@iamdigex.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 10:01 AM
To: Dan Rogers
Cc: WAI Interest Group; uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: xml?[Fwd: News or idle rumor?]


At 05:55 PM 10/6/99 -0500, David Poehlman wrote:
>it has been said that microsoft plans to develop something propriatary
>and perhaps sinister surrounding xml.  here is the response to that
>missive.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: News or idle rumor?
>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:48:11 -0700
>From: Dan Rogers <danro@microsoft.com>
>Reply-To: uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu
>To: "'uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu'" <uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu>
>CC: "'jn@tommy.demon.co.uk'" <jn@tommy.demon.co.uk>
>
[snip]
>
>Point 3.  The writer of this incorrect missive states that  Microsoft
>is using XML in a proprietary way.  This is patently rediculous.  How can
>you use the standard (W3C XML) in a proprietary way [?]

The XML specification per se doesn't tell you enough about any document
written
in XML to write a competent application processing that document.  It tells
you
some preliminaries enough to write a pre-processor module in that Ap. 

So it is perfectly possible to use XML in a way which is totally open or
effectively closed.  That is well understood in the XML community.  The W3C
is
still engaged in vigorous debate about just how to share the rest of what
you
should know about a given XML application profile.

This is not to argue that Microsoft is or is not using XML in their
applications in a way that is improper.  I just want to observe that the
established body of W3C Recommendations does leave room for worry.

XML is not sufficient for open.

Open is not necessary for accessible.

For WAI purposes, proprietary vs. open is not the right issue to be homed in
on.

What we are striving for in our dialogs between the WAI and the XML
activity in
the W3C is to lay the foundations for universally-understood methods of
"graceful transformation" (see WCAG) for XML document content, with
sufficent
markup and constraint infrastructure to support those.

Dan, would you consider including in your "welcome to the library" message
to
people who join the BizTalk service a note to the effect that access for
people
with disabilities for XML applications is still under development?  We
really
need a few more people who are actually developing application profiles
beyond
just the DAISY digital talking book involved to add a few grains of reality
checking to the effort.

Al 
Received on Thursday, 7 October 1999 12:46:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:45 GMT