Re: Accessibility for Re: Updated Wiki to cover proposal

perhaps bear in mind that the ISO standard, for example, will want to  
allow for extensions, in the refinement way to maintain structure, so  
I agree that lists of literal values could be tricky ...


On 19/11/2013, at 7:47 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> On 18 November 2013 13:36, Charles McCathie Nevile
> <> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 02:44:39 +0800, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <> wrote:
>>> has enumerated types, which might be better to use than  
>>> text
>>> with a list of expected strings.
>> Yes, that was what I was thinking... We should make that change.
> I'm not so convinced yet. There are quite a lot of values, and given
>'s flat namespace we would have to consider each term as
> _the_ use of that word.
> e.g. MathML; sound; captions; latex; timing etc. would become
> ...
> My inclination (especially having seen the variety of views earlier in
> these discussions) is that allowing Text and also allowing values
> represented by URL might be the right combination.'s
> enumerations work best for short, rigid, fixed lists that won't evolve
> or get extended...
> Dan

Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 23:44:52 UTC