Re: ERT XHTML Module for the WAI

How fortunate it is that soon, on December 4 and 5 of this year, the ER and PF
groups will be meeting together.  We can consider roles, deliverables and step
by step plans together at that time.

In the past PF have encouraged ER to go ahead and prototype things like RDF
application profiles to annotate the results of accessibility evaluation.  We
never got specific about coordination plans for such a beast.  If it is "a
module [or an application profile] for accessibility" it might be worth a
cross-working-group task force.  Just because work products don't sort nicely
according to our current group charters doesn't mean that they shouldn't be
done.

This falls in the general area of "how does our division of labor adapt to the
new layering of Web applications brought about by XML?"  Here we seem to have
some agreement that this is a real question, but no consensus that we have an
agreed answer.

Al

At 01:56 PM 2000-11-20 +0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>Dear Sir,
>> I think that a better approach, and the one we tend to try to use,
>> is to make the accessib ility features part of the language itseelf.
>
>I see what you mean, but the HTML WG have structured XHTML very differently
>to how it used to be. Now the only "core" part of the language are the core
>modules: structure, basic text, lists, and hypertext. Any "modules/changes"
>that we make *will* be a part of the language itself, because that's what
>m12n is.
>I'm not saying that the PF group should stop trying to get the HTML WG to
>add accessibility into the HTML WG modules, or for that matter 1.1/2.0; on
>the contrary that is one of the primary things it needs to do. However, many
>people will be creating m12n families that don't use all that many W3C
>modules, and if we created a module for accessibility, they could mix it
>into any XHTML m12n based language, and not just XHTML 1.1.
>
>> That is what the Protocols and Formats group does - and if you
>> want to help we would appreciate it.
>
>Sure, I don't mind, but I don't like dealing with the HTML WG direct, due to
>the level of politics over programming. They tend to take anything that I
>say with a pinch of salt nowadays, no matter how useful my comments are..
>
>> The net result is more or less the same, except that instead of having to
>> add in a modle for accessibility it is there as one of the basic
>> requirements of the language.
>
>We should do both!
>
>Kindest Regards,
>Sean B. Palmer
><http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/>http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
>"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
>   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
>
>
>
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>>
>>   I've been asked for a clarification on what m12n is, and what it means
>to
>>   the WAI.
>>   As you all know, XHTML (the W3Cs main document markup language), is only
>>   valid if it follows the XHTML DTD - or Document Type Definition. The DTD
>is
>>   the piece of code that tells you exactly what markup is allowed where.
>>   Everything that is allowed in XHTML is defined in the DTD.
>>   With XHTML m12n (modularization), the HTML WG have split up the DTD into
>>   "modules". Each module contains a fragment of the XHTML DTD, i.e.
>contains
>>   the specification/definition for a set of elements and/or attributes.
>For
>>   example, the Image module contains the <img> element and its attributes.
>>   What this allows us to do is create our own markup languages using the
>XHTML
>>   modules, creating an XHTML Family. In essence, this allows the general
>>   public (us included) to re-write XHTML as we would like it. One can
>>   therefore:-
>>        1. Add modules
>>        2. Delete modules
>>        3. Replace modules
>>        4. Modify modules
>>        5. Add elements
>>        6. Add attributes
>>        7. Add entities
>>        8. Change the content model
>>   What this means is that XHTML is no longer as inflexible as it used to
>be -
>>   if you don't like some aspect of it, simply re-write it! It gives the
>power
>>   back to the people: no longer do you have to lobby the HTML WG for
>changes
>>   to XHTML, we can simply write them ourselves.
>>   What I am suggesting is that we write a "new" module that can be added
>to
>>   XHTML. This module could change XHTML to make it more acessible. As
>stated
>>   before, we could remove presentational elements, add in new semantic
>ones,
>>   put in RDF, and at a stretch change the content model if need be.
>>   Why do I believe that this is the domain of the ERT group? Becuse of the
>>   name: WAI Evaluation and Repair Tools group. I see this module as being
>a
>>   repair for the inaccessible features of XHTML; it is an XHTML repair
>tool.
>>   It is one that we can write fully by ourselves, with little or no help
>from
>>   the HTML WG - that is why they made m12n in the first place, so people
>could
>>   change XHTML themselves: a sort of DIY XHTML!
>>
>>   When the module is done, if people want to use our accessibility
>features,
>>   they can so so by using this bit of code as their DTD (what it does is
>mix
>>   our module with XHTML 1.1):-
>>
>>        <!ENTITY % waiert10.mod
>>             PUBLIC "-//W3C//MODULE XHTML WAI ERT 1.0//EN"
>>                   
"<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/waiert10.mod>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/waiert10.mo
d" >
>>        %waiert10.mod;
>>        <!ENTITY % xhtml11.dtd
>>             PUBLIC "-//W3C//XHTML 1.1//EN"
>>                   
"<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/
DTD/xhtml11.dtd" >
>>        %xhtml11.dtd;
>>
>>   [Disclaimer: Please note that the FPI and system URI are only examples,
>and
>>   don't imply W3C support for the modules or the URIs given (i.e. only
>>   intended for discussion).]
>>   The example I have listed above is only one example of what we could do
>>   using m12n. For a fuller list, visit
>>  
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_developing.html>http://www.w3
.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_developing.html
>>
>>   Hopefully my original message will make a bit more sense now:-
>>
>>   > Dear Colleagues,
>>   > I recently came up with the idea that the ERT Group could issue an
>XHTML
>>   > Module [1] to take away some of the elements causing accessibility
>>   problems
>>   > in XHTML 1.1 [2], and add some of our own to improve accessibility.
>>   > For example, it would be possible to write this module to do the
>following
>>   > tasks, amongst others:-
>>   > 1. Take out some of the presentational elements of HTML (<b> etc.)
>>   > 2. Add in some more semantic ones (<annotation>, <anchor>)
>>   > 3. Add in RDF etc. [3]
>>   > Plus anything else to do with markup changes that the WAI feel are
>>   > necessary, or useful, to make to XHTML 1.1, in order to improve
>>   > accessibility. I welcome suggestions on both this proposal, and what
>kind
>>   of
>>   > things you would like to see in the module if you feel it's a good
>idea.
>>   >
>>   > A short FAQ:
>>   >
>>   > 1. What is Modularization (m12n)? See
>>   >
>>
><http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/introduction.html#s_intro_whati
smo>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/introduction.html#s_intro_what
ismo
>>   > d
>>   >
>>   > 2. Why Modularize XHTML (In particular, why should the ERT group
>create an
>>   > XHTML Module)?
>>   > [[[
>>   > The modularization of XHTML refers to the task of specifying
>well-defined
>>   > sets of XHTML elements that can be combined and extended by document
>>   > authors, document type architects, other XML standards specifications,
>and
>>   > application and product designers to make it economically feasible for
>>   > content developers to deliver content on a greater number and
>diversity of
>>   > platforms.
>>   > ]]] -
><http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/introduction.html#s_intro>http:
//www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/introduction.html#s_intro
>>   >
>>   >
>>   > References:-
>>   > [1]
>>   >
>>
><http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_module_rules.html#s_dtd_mod
ule>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_module_rules.html#s_dtd_mo
dule
>>   > _rules
>>   >      "Modularization of XHTML; Building DTD Modules"
>>   >           Robert Adams, Murray Altheim, Shane P. McCarron, et al.
>>   > [2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/
>>   >      "XHTMLT 1.1 - Module-based XHTML"
>>   >           Murray Altheim, Shane P. McCarron
>>   > [3]
<http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/modules/rdf/rdf.mod>http://xhtml.waptechinfo.c
om/modules/rdf/rdf.mod
>>   >      "An RDF Dublin Core module for XHTML"
>>   >           Sean B. Palmer
>>
>>   Kindest Regards,
>>   Sean B. Palmer
>>   <http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/>http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
>>   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
>>   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
>>   "Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
>>      - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charles McCathieNevile    <mailto:charles@w3.org>mailto:charles@w3.org   
phone: +61 (0) 409 134
>136
>> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
><http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI
>> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>> September - November 2000:
>> W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>France
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 09:34:46 UTC