Re: conflation of issues or convergence of interests?

At 17:05 +1000 UTC, on 2007-07-29, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

[... explicitly defining the relationship between equivalents]

> Explicit association is not the only way to indicate a relationship
> between items.

Merely stating that doesn't address the use cases some of us have provided.
How exactly does a non-explicit relationship indicate the relationship
between two or more equivalents when the user (human or otherwise) can, for
whatever reason, not consume them all?

Or even when that user can? Consider your example of
<>. I can consume both the
text and the audio, but only deduce that they're equivalents by consuming
both. There is zero indication that they are equivalents.

[... YouTube]

> If it's possible to
> have a successful, implicit relationship between a video and it's
> description (or whatever else), it should also be possible between a
> video and a link to its alternative.

Fine. How?

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <>

Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 00:40:08 UTC