W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2007

RE: alternative guides to content (semantic, visual, but not pronunciation)

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:16:35 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D258B94@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: "Colin Lieberman" <colin@cactusflower.org>
Cc: "Noah Slater" <nslater@gmail.com>, "Rimantas Liubertas" <rimantas@gmail.com>, <public-html@w3.org>

At Sun 3/25/2007 3:04 PM
Colin Lieberman wrote:

So let's really let this thread die this time, and revisit the issue
when it's more relevant to the group's work.


Actually, by renaming it,  I had tried to mutate it into a slightly different thread, one looking at how broadly the group might choose to conceptualize its task. 
In addition to the pronumciation issues (which might seem to have numerous issues beyond just the three tags under discussion) of the previous thread, there might be visual guidance such as for word art -- the word "oval" drawn (using CSS) so that its letters are shaped as an oval -- a collection of words displayed in the four dimensions of x, y, time and z-index, or alternatively a dozen or two conceivably distinct semantic markups. I'm curious to see what others think about what boundaries there may be to the realm of this project. Which of the N parallel universes associated with a given plain-text utterance are appropriate for tagged annotation within a web-based markup language?
Dailey, David P. wrote:
> If, in addition to the pronunciation geometry attached to our writing, we considered the projection or our writing into a variety of other spaces, we could end up with a most intriguing topology.
> That is, we might consider the peculiar juxtaposition of glyphs which sometimes make up the visual pun :
>   L
> E  EVATE  (In case my email messes this up it is the word elevate with the L doubly superscripted)
> Or in the broader sense "Word Art"...
> Should markup for that be a part of the next HTML? I don't think I saw it in WHATWG's current draft. (Though there is a lot there that I am only now discovering.)
> We might wish to allow a variety of parallel semantic markups to convey authors' intentions:
> connotative markup in some sort of Osgoodian Semantic Differential space
> thesaurus-based disambiguation of polysemy
> THEREFORE/BUT  inferential diagrams
> OWL-ish stuff
> causal chaining
> dependency hierarchies
> etc.
> I guess the particular case in hand of <Acronym> and <ABBR> gets me to thinking about just how far the WG wants to go.
> David Dailey
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2007 23:16:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:21:34 UTC