Re: Minutes from 20 November 2000 ERT WG Telecon

I like to clarify things, if only for my own benefit, so I'm attaching a few
useful comments here. Original minutes are in "quote marks". But firstly,
here is one of my neat little summaries of the sorts of technologies that
could be worked on (by this group and others: but all discussed in the
Telecon):
1. A conformance definition for WCAG guidelines
2. A WCAG description and assertion language
3. Methods for including RDF/XML into XHTML etc.
4. Clearing up the mess in 1.1/Basic
5. Adding generic m12n accessibility features
6. Making sure 2.0 is accessible
7. Promoting all alternate methods of making sure XHTML/XML is accessible

Here are my notes on the Telecon:-
"SP: It should be as technology independent as we can. Have to discuss what
it does. Language not discussed yet, but could be XML. Could also express
accessibility of CSS. We're now changing from WCAG 1.0 (which was HTML
based) to 2.0 which is more general."

Actually, I asked: are we? or possibly when shall we? Nobody really
answered, but then it is a GL thing anyway. How set in stone is WCAG 2.0?
Should we base ERT on 1.0, or 2.0? That is a key question...

"DD: Use of RDF?
SP: Would be used, yes. It's metadata for doc.
DD: Like a schema?
SP: Could write a schema.
DD: Apply schema to document?
SP: If RDF used then does not need schema. List of elements in namespace.
Dublin core doesn't use schema."

RSS can have an RDF Schema, but it doesn't assert a structure. In the minds
of the RSS-dev groups, nothing is good enough to assert the kind of
ambiguous structure they need (and they are fully correct).

"WL: ADL purpose - expressed in RDF.
SP: Put ADL in module?"

Hmmmm.....should have been "integrate ADL with module". In the end that
might end up with one of us adding ADL to the "Accessibility Module". BTW:
Note that it will actully be a driver file for a much smaller collection of
modules. i.e. one .module file referencing lots of .mod files.

"DD: Modularization will help. XML schema is way of future.
SP: There is no release of XML schema for HTML."

Thanks for the neat editing!
[BTW: According to the XHTML roadmap, DSR and Mimasa are looking into XML
Schema for XHTML, but it won't be included into the current draft of m12n.]

"WL: We have a problem with coding behind RDF but is transparent.
SP: yes semantic web. Has great potential if we work together. Tech will be
hidden to user."

At some point, this occured, but it hasn't made it into the minutes:-
     SP: [...] but this is all moving towards the Semantic Web...
     WL: What better place to start than here!

"WL: Al Gilman suggests that cross working group task force."

I think the chairs should look into that closely. I'm am still fairly
confused as to who's domain all of this is...hopefully I'll be joining the
PF group soon...a cross WG task force sounds like a very good idea, IMO.

"SP: XHTML is a display format while XML is data format. Modularization of
XHTML makes it more like data."

Note that I pointed out that m12n is changing XHTML from document to data,
but I didn't suggest that was a good or bad thing. Like all things it has
advantges and disadvantages: I'll leave it to everyone else to weigh them
up.

"SP: Can override XHTML. Is still display format. Is not pure XML yet. Need
to make changes to XHTML. We need module to change XHTML. Use RDF."

Er...it looks as if I was being a bit abrupt there, sorry. XHTML certainly
needs changes, but it's up to everyone else how those changes should be
made. I'll just follow along to everyone's suggestions.
Basically, anything I have to offer in the way of suggestions is only me
tring to be helpful...a lot of the time my suggestions are rubbish, but
occasionally I come up with a good idea. As long as I get feedback, I'm
O.K.!

"SP: Modularization has a presentation module as a part of 1.1. If 2.0 is
accessibility then OK. Won't be though if namespace is still there.
Modularization allows for presentation markup. We need to add semantics to
presentation.
WL: If anti semantic then don't let in.
HB: Like converting <b> to <strong>."

Mr. Loughborough has a good point. Converting <b> to <strong> just doesn't
sway it really, because the <b> can't have an extra semantic meaning,
whereas the <strong> could, but it's the right kind of idea.

"HB: in SGML we wanted to separate structure and content.
SP: Attach behaviors to that?
HB: No."

Mr.Bingham talked about SGML for quite a while, but the phone connection was
very intermittent, which was a great shame. While the gist of what he said
was "in SGML we wanted to separate structure and content", I believe the
final part was:

HB: [in SGML] we defined that element names can be as expressive as you
like.
SP: But attaching behaviours?
HB: No!

Which was great: that really concludes my (nightmare) arguement with Anne on
GL (many thanks to HB). I hadn't realized that Mr. Bingham had worked on
SGML...I am truly working in the shadows of giants.

"DD: In 2.0 can still create presentation modules and are poorly designed."

Sure. That's another problem we need to tackle.

O.K, as far as I see it then, of the following issues/technologies discussed
in the Telecon:-
1. A conformance definition for WCAG guidelines
2. A WCAG description and assertion language
3. Methods for including RDF/XML into XHTML etc.
4. Clearing up the mess in 1.1/Basic
5. Adding generic m12n accessibility features
6. Making sure 2.0 is accessible
7. Promoting all alternate methods of making sure XHTML/XML is accessible

We may as well start on 1 right away. [Anyone know how to start a Working
Draft?!] Of course, that is unless someone feels like tying it into one of
the other points. However, we can always update it as we go along.
2 will have to wait for some input from Len.
3 is a big task, but can be tackled by m12n and XLink and whatever else. It
sounds like DD knows a great deal about this.
4/5/6 are major discussion efforts, and it needs someone (i.e. the chairs)
to point out the way to go. 4 and 5 *could* be done by ERT, but 6 is
definately PF.
7 is a future task

Hoping as always that this is helpful...
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 15:39:27 UTC