W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: accessible sites in i-mode

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:45:23 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020713074630.02134930@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>, sub@shanx.com
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

At 05:39 AM 2002-07-13, Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
>Probably further discussion should be moved to www-mobile@w3.org or
>somewhere else.

Moving the thread to a more focused, deliverable-oriented context is OK if we 
a) identify the dependencies and 
b) define a responsible party [probably an organizational unit, not an individual] and 
report-back mechanism to make whatever happens be accountable to this 
community where there is clearly an interest.

<explore
axis="dependencies">

a) this issue comes up for Tiny devices used in Mobile situations
b) this issue comes up for people in situations where literacy cannot be assumed
[examples range widely, including dyslexia and polyglot user communities]
c) we need one, or as compact as possible, a plan for how to do this to gain deployment

You only need to compare the role of 
1) neo-ideographs such as Bliss symbols in accessibility with the role of 
2) neo-ideographs such as iMode emoji in device independence with the role of 
3) neo-ideographs such as the international standard fabric care symbols in i18n
 http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9707/carepcon.htm

to see we have a common interest.

<conclusion>

<dependencies>
<stakeholder>Mobile</stakeholder>
<stakeholder>Internationalization</stakeholder>
<stakeholder>Accessibility</stakeholder>
</dependencies>

</conclusion>
</explore>

Just as HTML has been exploring schema annotations as a way of capturing role information
in linkage indications, the XAG contemplates dialect-coiners using this or some
equivalent facilitation solution to bind sense to grammars more generally.

 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XLink.html
 http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML/

In the Mobile theater of operation we will have the greatest cost per character and the
greatest pressure to use private characters where a syntactic XML element [or other recognizable pattern] should be used.

Let me float this to the Hypertext Coordination Group to learn who should take the
role of Office of Primary [or currently next] Responsibility (OPR) for this issue.

Al

>"Shashank Tripathi" <sub@shanx.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what works in German i-mode devices..any idea where the
>> difference lies? Does the specificaiton there consist only of standard
>> cHTML tags?
>
>I happened to find English documentation (only available in PDF) from
>the Dutch i-mode site, at:
>
>    http://www.imode.nl/imode/0,1302,2X1046,00.html
>
>Looks like what is used in Europe is so-called i-mode HTML version 2.0,
>while the latest version used in Japan is version 4.0.  The major
>difference with i-mode HTML 2.0 used in Japan is those emoji mapping,
>and support for numeric charcter references like &#8364; for the Euro
>symbol.
>
>Probably further discussion should be moved to www-mobile@w3.org or
>somewhere else.
>
>Regards,
>-- 
>Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
>W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2002 08:45:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:05 GMT