Re: Re[2]: FW: acronym in title...

Hi folks,

I am working up a demo now. The basic idea is that using annotea we can point
to the text in question and provide an alternative version for it - e.g. a
couple of words in the title of an HTML document, or within an alt attribute.

As far as I know this is not yet supported by annotea clients in a clean
authoring/reading interface, but this may become a useful demonstration case
for what we would like (and for why it would be better in common cases to
have a simpler method using language built-ins).

I'll get back to you when I have posted the demo page and annotation...



On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Al Gilman" <>
>To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <>; <>;
><>; <>
>Cc: <>
>Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:10 AM
>Subject: Re: Re[2]: FW: acronym in title...
>>I would approach the assistive technology developers and ask what
>>kind of an indirect relationship they could most readily see
>>implementing.  Will they come to the W3C DOM for this information?
>>Do we need to get it into MSAA?
>I think that IBM and other W3C member that create these applications could
>reply to this.
>>It would not be hard to write a tool that reads a glossary and
>>adds things like the language information to HTML attributes where
>>they appear in the DOM.  Then the assistive technology could know that
>>'Piazza San Marco' was Italian.
>Hum... i think it would be difficoult to have a full dictionary for all the
>possible words.
>But - at now - i have no proposal for solution in my mind :-/
>>The problem is that if the HTML Working Group were to introduce an
>>incompatible change in a minor release like that, who would implement
>>it?  The conventional wisdom is "nobody."  And I am not inclined to
>>second-guess the experts on that point.
>>Incompatible changes in HTML are generally not going to be considered
>>outside the XHTML 2.0 activity, as it is risky to think with the heavy use
>>of HTML all the time that any incompatible changes will be taken up in
>>practice, even with the best efforts of the HTML WG.
>>XHTML 2.0 is the version that HTML WG is working on.  We would have to have
>>a flaming disaster going on to get an incompatible change released as some
>>sort of an interim patch, and it is not clear who would implement it.
>>Besides, there are too many, too good, ways to do this in ways that
>>interoperate with HTML 2.0.
>>There is also a plugin option for the browser extension.  Also an
>>independent screen scraper like Atomica.
>So, at least, for the "previous" version all we can do is to "hope" to
>have - for example - intelligent text readers that read the words in the
>natural language...
>Roberto Scano
>IWA/HWG EMEA Coordinator
>W3C Advisory Committee Representative for IWA/HWG
>International Webmasters Association / HTML Writers Guild
> -
>E-Mail: -

Charles McCathieNevile  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E         fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 05:54:47 UTC