- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:10:18 -0400
- To: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'Al Gilman'" <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Cc: "'James Craig'" <jcraig@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> Interesting, but nothing at all to do with the SWeb project/goals. You are still talking > about human/human communication here. The SWeb goal is to perform work without human > intervention or communication being necessary. Perhaps 'inference web' would have been a > better term, but we are stuck with 'semantic web' now. This is how I have always view "Semantic Web". A non-special needs user of a standard Web browser doesn't need HTML to figure out when red, bold text means "important" and when it means "this field on this form is required." That Web browser application *does* need semantic tags to act differently on red, bold text that should be "important" text as opposed to indicated a required form field; so does a search engine, and so do a lot of other "interesting" applications. Other than the ARIA spec, which should be rolled 100% into HTML 5, I have seen little to believe that we are honestly working toward the Semantic Web goal. In fact, I see an awful lot that is contrary to it. All of these RIA-related features need to be *removed* from HTML 5 unless ARIA is a mandatory part of HTML 5 (made part of the spec, and the tags are mandatory). To do otherwise is to violate one of our stated goals. So, which bullet do we prefer to bite? Removing the "Web 2.0" stuff from HTML 5? Or making ARIA a mandatory set of attributes/tags/whatever in HTML 5, and (hopefully) finding a way to make a direct connection between CSS definitions and ARIA? J.Ja
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 05:11:22 UTC