- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:54:08 -0800
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
At 04:42 PM 11/25/00 +0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote: >Using <head profile="[...]">, <meta> or <link> isn't good enough for XML >processors which haven't got a clue what they should do when they run >across them. What "XML processors"? Why can't their cluelessness be abrogated? If the RDF information from <head profile="[...]"> exists on the Web (and we now have at least one instance thereof!) then why couldn't it be retrievable by something WELL short of an AI implementation? Even if this is labeled a "hack" it could avoid an absurd amount of "syntax negotiation" such as is currently enrapturing the RDF world, not to mention whether XHTML will ever be ubiquitous. In point of fact, one could impose this "hack" on any HTML file RIGHT NOW and the resultant profiles would FOREVER be available without too much wringing of purist hands? The "questionnaire" scenario that Seth Russell spoke of seems very practical and whatever resulted would always be decodable, much as we can still convert a WordStar document into Word 2005 or whatever. We need a plausible mechanism for indexing such statements as "I tried this file out in Lynx 2.8.1 and it's usable therein" or "this one passed Bobby 3.0" and any later refinements of the method for doing that or niceties of how it's encoded/stored/retrieved will be transcended by the nowness of it. Results trump perfection. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 25 November 2000 13:55:08 UTC