- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:25:47 -0500
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
At lunchtime today we had a BOF on the [re-]presentation of grammar tokens in W3C specification documents. In this conversation I mentioned to Susan an idea from the XAG where it suggests a document dialect (in this case a genre) definition define _multiple_ presentation/interaction bindings (e.g. stylesheets) available pre-formulated for authors of instances in this dialect (of this genre). XML Accessibility Guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/xag#cp3_1 This is a no-status draft, but one should note that the U.S. Federal XML community in their exploration of eForms has looked favorably on this idea of proving view independence of a model by validating usability in each of several views. "Eforms for E-Gov" Pilot Project Update http://listserv.gsa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0302&L=cioc-web-services&F=&S=&P=3896 Collateral ideas are: .. the plain text form could possibly be eliminated from the morph repertory. .. we should be looking at not just providing a "Zip of HTML for offline use" but upgrading to routinely producing a fully compliant digital talking book instance in accordance with ANSI/NISO Z39.86, Specifications for the Digital Talking Book e.g. read starting at http://www.loc.gov/nls/niso/ We need to do pilots before we dictate fixed practices into the W3C production practices, but we should also be thinking about using W3C work products as example cases for the DI etc. technology that we are cooking in working groups. Al
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 02:40:45 UTC