Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

> Telling me that something that is perfectly well done in HTML should
> be moved out of HTML where it doesn't work very well anyway,
> isn't changing my mind one bit. Among other problems, you are
> introducing the great chance of errors by creating two sets of code.
> The idea that those two codes are needed because the visual
> presentation "must" be separate from the basic document, makes no
> sense at all.

If you look at the RDF data models, you'll see the reason: if the Semantic
Web is going to be a machine processable Web of languages relying on
triplets to eventually lead to proof validation, attaching behaviours to any
form of semantic processable data on the client side is going to cause
problems. The schema layer in the RDF model isn't set up to provide
behavioural display assertion; simply because that task is impossible. By
attaching behaviours to Semantics that are expected to be recognized and
displayed properly by default is wrong, and you need to back up the
proprietary assertion you are trying to make with some type of schema. At
the moment there is no form of schema available to do this, which is why we
have Cascading Style Sheet languages to help us cope in the meantime.

As for my email address crashing your email program, simply use
sean@wapdesign.org.uk in the To or CC line.

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 09:10:20 UTC