W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Unstyled Content (was Re: Draft suggestion: "normal" needed)

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:44:31 -0400
Message-Id: <p0611040dbf0197b61cca@[10.0.1.2]>
To: "Edward Lass" <elass@goer.state.ny.us>, <www-html@w3.org>

At 9:52 AM -0400 7/18/05, Edward Lass wrote:
>  >>> David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> 7/15/2005 6:52:03 PM >>>
>>
>>>  Is there, or will there be, a requirement in the XHTML 2.0 WD or
>any
>>>  future XHTML specifications that conformant user agents must have
>at
>>>  least CSS Level 1 support?
>>
>>  That would be unreasonable; it would require search engine indexers,
>>  web site summarisers, etc. to have CSS support even though they had
>>  no means of rendering the page.
>
>I should have said conformant visual user agents. Mea culpa.
>
>Just generally, let me say that I've seen on this mailing list repeat
>concerns about semantics that would be lost if CSS weren't supported.
>Things like marking up a thought. What's the best answer? I don't know.
>So far I've seen one suggestion and a bunch of people who are
>unconcerned. Hm.
>
>Maybe the solution is to pass this problem off to the CSS people and
>hope for a CSS Typographic Profile - ala the CSS Mobile Profile and CSS
>Print Profile - containing the absolute bare minimum CSS needed for
>typography. And then hope that visual and aural user agents would at
>least implement that.

Check out the work package that the Device Independence Working
Group calls "Core Presentation Characteristics."

http://www.w3.org/2001/di/

However, to go with this we need the dictionary of uses that these
characteristics get put to, what the rationale is for the use of these
effects.  Such as displaying a 'thought' in italic type.  'Italic' is the
effect but "unspoken thought" is the rationale.

These rationale terms should be used in @class or @role attributes to
guide the application of the aforementioned core, cross-device text
effects.

We have the clear example from Braille[1] that the range of
rationales that get given italics in print is different from the
range of rationales that get given italics in equally literate use of
Braille.  So for cross-device use we need the rationale to be
articulated, not just the effect in one deliver context.

But Ed, I agree with you that isolating a module which is
a) a subset of this 'core presentation characteristics' topic, and
b) built up from the i18n work on the Character Model[2]
is a sensible way to break out the work.

Al

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/braillecss.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/

>- Ed.
Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 17:46:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:03 GMT