W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Public list or not? (Was What are Semantics?)

From: Nicholas Atkinson <nik@casawana.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:22:41 +0100
Message-ID: <009001c2486e$5db3c4a0$0300000a@natkinwkstn>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

> It's not obvious that any of these issues are architectural, except for
> there's no automated and generally workable way to do @2 right now, and
> some might see this as an architectural hole.  -Tim
>

I agree.   This is an architectural hole.

As someone else put it very succinctly:
if there were a way to associate
ArbitraryVocabulary with Ontology with MediumNeutralRendering (in that
order) then we'd have a much better Web.

nik

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: 20 August 2002 15:38
Subject: Re: Public list or not? (Was What are Semantics?)


>
>
>
> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> > 4. Is it acceptable to publish raw XML on the Web? While this was one of
> > the original goals of XML 1.0, some members of the WAI object to this
> > strongly. If it is acceptable to publish raw XML, then there are a lot
> > of other questions about stylesheets, metadata, accessibility, and so
> > forth that need to be adressed as well. On the other hand, if the
> > position that only HTML/XHTML, and a few other predefined vocabularies
> > are suitable for Web publication, then a lot of other issues become
moot.
>
> 1. Publishing raw XML is fine if you're aiming it at a specific group of
> other people who know the vocabulary and how to deal with it.  It isn't
> really "raw XML" in this case, it's some language agreed on advance by
> co-operating parties.
>
> 2. Publishing raw XML to the world might make sense if you accompanied
> it with sufficient ancillary tools (stylesheets, java classes, whatever)
> that somebody who didn't know the vocabulary could still do something
> useful with it.
>
> 3. Publishing *anything* for general human consumption and not dealing
> with accessibility issues is stupid, immoral, and bad for business, as
> has been made clear many times, not just by the W3C.
>
> It's not obvious that any of these issues are architectural, except for
> there's no automated and generally workable way to do @2 right now, and
> some might see this as an architectural hole.  -Tim
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 13:29:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT