W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > March 2006

microformats for [glossary] definition format

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:54:05 -0500
Message-Id: <p06110408c0477f569e80@[10.0.1.2]>
To: jkorpela@cs.tut.fi
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org


Hi, Jukka.

I'm still wrestling with what to recommend by way of 'deployable' (what
authors will actually use) techniques for clarifying words that are likely
stumbling blocks for web consumers.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overview.html#meaning-idioms

At the W3C Technical Plenary I got enthusiastic about the approaches
called "Microformats."

http://microformats.org/

Things I like about it include:

- use the metadata attributes @class etc. that already are in HTML and
document how you are using them.

- write your usage explanation in a literate programming style, again
using what HTML already gives you to advantage.

But then I looked at the XMDP description:

http://www.gmpg.org/xmdp/description

I rapidly came to the conclusion that they should have used TABLE
instead of DL for their HTML fabric for definitions.  Funny, you had
already been down that road.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/def.html#markup

What do you think of the Microformats technology?  Is this a promising
track for "definition-definition" knowledge?

It would be good to get something out there that would do the job
of documenting the logic of glossary entries and thereby enable
affordable clarification and assistive processing of troublesome words?

Otherwise how should we move ahead?

Al

PS:  This metadata-mechanics question is also applicable to the
say-as issue as regards the Pronunciation Lexicon Specification from
Voice Browser.

http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110403c03e134b2a16@%5B10.0.1.2%5D
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:04:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:40 GMT