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

Re: Automated Accessibility Options

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:44:43 -0000
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <avu58j$eve$1@main.gmane.org>


"Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org> wrote in message
news:D8D4F6EF-2687-11D7-B3E0-000A95678F24@sidar.org...
>On Monday, Jan 13, 2003, at 10:31 Australia/Melbourne, Nick Kew wrote:

>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>> 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.

>I am sure you should look at CC/PP... Actually I am not certain that
>the use of RDF does increase the overhead unjustifiably.

You can build a proxy into IE that modifies simple headers easily (actually
you can, I think, do it simply via the registry, and 5 lines of script to
provide the registry changing...), coupling an RDF parser into is certainly
non-trivial, you also have the problem of educating users to author
appropriate vocabularies, or develop a suitable editor.  CC/PP is massively
over-engineered for the above, doesn't work simply with web caches (unlike
Nick's x-accessibility header)   A simple view header which describes what
resource you want from the server, is very different to describing to the
server what you can deal with, and leaving it up to the server to decide
what to give.

Jim.
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 05:44:55 GMT

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