- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 12:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: daniela@cnet.com (Daniel B. Austin)
- Cc: html-future@w3.org, w3c@cnet.com, cottonc@cnet.com, freds@cnet.com, gregs@cnet.com, kennethn@cnet.com
One of the dominant themes in your presentation is to put some distance between the retained form of content and its presented form on the screen. There is a lot of interest in this objective. It is entirely consistent with the best I can do in terms of laying down a long-term demand profile for accessibility. I think there are two reasons your message is not winning more support: 1. You arbitrarily assign the HTML name to the surface form, whereas the whole architecture in a sense is the replacement for HTML as it is currently used. And nobody wins unless the whole architecture including reusable retained form emerges. 2. You don't address the third-party aspects of the scenario. The architecture has to support reliable interoperation of presentation transforms and content patches created by different parties. This means that there needs to be a Web-community consensus on the schema of attributes and methods which connect presentation transforms with retained stuff. To get the arm's length you want, there has to be meaningful progress on point 2. above, and you don't mention that. Al PS: The remark in your notice about "you need ...-browser to view this properly" is a little pessimistic. The message is pretty clear as presented in 80 X 24 ASCII characters using lynx. You are closer to where you want to be than you think.
Received on Monday, 1 June 1998 12:57:36 UTC