- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:11:06 -0500 (EST)
- To: kasday@acm.org (Leonard R. Kasday)
- Cc: dd@w3.org, mike@vorburger.ch, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, ballim@di.epfl.ch, perrocho@inf.ethz.ch, kennel@inf.ethz.ch
Some initial reactions on reading through Michael's document: ** Strategy The document talks about three "frontends:" I would call these "representative applications" or insertions of the backend technology. 1. Fully decisive ALT insertion as a batch transform on an HTML document. Demonstration is by HTTP proxy server which applies the transform. [Note: I would rather call this BATCH mode that USER mode because of the TRY HARDER concept in interactive user scenarios.] 2. [Un*x] command-line tool for site-wide ALT maintenance. 3. Interactive "site-wide" Windows GUI tool. The third scenario is one that Michael Pieper's student is also addressing, if I remember correctly. I believe that there are other scenarios that the ER IG might give a high priority or the WG might be able to support with code such as integration into a Bobby report. I hope we can talk some about the shape of application scenarios for the central "novel" module in this project which is the guess generator. There are ER-IG issues about the expected utility of different application configurations such as OCR, and ER-WG issues about how can we use existing code such as Bobby as demonstration/evaluation harnesses for new code by swapping resources. ** Tactics: [editorial] in the discussion of OBJECT repair it says "setting title only for the innermost" and it may be misunderstood unless you expand to "setting the TITLE value as the content ony for..." [detail] changing a bare ALT with no value indication to ALT="" is a repair that may be automatic in some circumstances and not others. I am suggesting that we separate candidate-generation methods such as this which are entirely determined by the resources found from "are we done?" rules which vary from application scenario to application scenario. [integration - ER-WG?] I am concerned that the PI to the A-Prompt works at too local a level to move the "guess" function in under the A-prompt call. The "guess function uses more global information than the A-Prompt call gets. For methods experimentation, I would think of a shared HTML --> DOM --> HTML environment or abstract PI to a variety of such environments as a foundation for integrating experimental transforms. This would leave the transforms operating on the DOM interface. Is this something we can do? Nobody in this group has yet come forward spontaneously working that way. [bias] As PF chair, I want this experiment capability to grow into something where one can prototype propsals that we offer to W3C working groups such as how the DOM should implement semantics that is in a schema and not an XML DTD (except by reference). Al
Received on Thursday, 10 December 1998 12:11:14 UTC