W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2006

Re: extensibility of role/class/property/rel Re: Security Markup

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:08:20 +0900
Message-Id: <A8A8E607-199E-4354-8E3F-8E0F84C8C6F4@w3.org>
Cc: XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>


Le 22 août 06 à 10:41, Al Gilman a écrit :
> There is a rather popular way of introducing definitions for
> extension properties annotated in the @class attribute, commonly
> known as "microformats."

yes. There are two aspects of it that you illustrate afterwards.

1. Definition of Semantics for these values
2. Access to the set of values and their definitions in an automated  
way.

The first one is a social aspect which indeed PFWG is answering with  
a spec. Which is really cool.

> Coming (with any kind of luck, soon) to a TR Page near you will be a
> draft specification on "Roles for Accessible Rich Internet
> Applications." This specification will use RDF to associate semantics
> with URIs that can be referenced in brief by QNames.  This is a
> conscious, designed partner to the XHTML Role Attribute Module.

but the issue, I have raised is about the second aspects, which is  
the mechanism to prefetch values and their definitions in a user  
agents. The same way, it is possible to fetch DTD, schemas, etc and  
do something with them because the software knows the grammar for  
reading a DTD or schema


> We in the PFWG believe that this mechanism allows us to publish
> responsible, machinable concept definitions and have web authors
> employ them as role definitions that they can cite without a great
> deal of hypertext bloat.  User agents can call on them for augmented
> user coaching, and author tools can call on them as well to construct
> prompts and menus for authors.

Yes indeed.

> The QName nature of the possible values of @role does not guarantee
> you a *uniform* manner of defining the role concepts cited.  But it
> does *encourage* the use of well-defined concepts such as we believe
> we will be publishing.

as I said 1. Social benefit of standards. Not the issue I'm tackling.

> The value that @role will add [1] to the Pronunciation Lexicon  
> Specification
> format would not be possible if we get too hidebound about what
> manner of definition the QName value refers to.  The discriminant  
> patters
> in pronunciation run the gamut from context to concept to speaker  
> group.
>
> Ada was the language that worked hardest at making it hard to write
> programs wrong.  The market has opted to leave the quality of programs
> to the writers, not to the notation.
>
> The varying quality is real; but it's in the taxonomies.   If you have
> quality definitions, a QName is fully adequate to invoke one of them.

I do not want a human to have to hunt down for the definition and  
referring manually to a specification which might difficult to  
understand modulo language.

btw SKOS has a mechanism for multilingual definition as well. But I'm  
really talking about the mechanism not the quality of the taxonomy.

*fetching values and their definitions* to put them into a UI  
(authoring tool for example). I'm not talking about meaning.

>
> Al
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JulSep/0029
>
>> If someone tells you otherwise, they are selling something.
>>
>> --
>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160  
>> x120
>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 05:09:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT