W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Automated Accessibility Options

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:31:48 +0000 (GMT)
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0301122315070.1352-100000@jarl.webthing.com>

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> you should probably look at CC/PP [1] as similar work

Are you sure about that?  My concern is that RDF introduces a whole
new level of complexity, that doesn't really seem justified in
such a simple negotiation.  Unless perhaps we reduce it in the
manner of dc: in HTML <meta> elements?

One of the objectives of mod_accessibility is to be a low-overhead
solution: it is by nature *much* faster and less obtrusive than betsie.
HTTP headers are well-suited to a lean-and-mean system; RDF less so.

>	 (it is about 
> providing profiles of user agents to make sure they get sent 
> appropriate content, which I think is pretty much what you are talking 
> about).

Not entirely.  The idea is not that the browser has a preferred version
(though it may do within different renditions), but that the user will
wish to switch frequently between different versions.

>    As far as I know there are no existing vocabularies which deal 
> with user requirements other than basic hardware profiles, but the 
> framework for them should work, and it would be, in my opinion, an 
> important implementation demonstration.

Sure, the HTTP headers for this could be expressed as an RDF vocabulary.

Still thinking about your post, and i reserve the right to change my
mind about any of the above.  Thanks for the thoughts:-)

-- 
Nick Kew
Received on Sunday, 12 January 2003 18:31:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT