- From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:13:33 +1000
- To: "Mirabella, Mathew J" <Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com>, "w3c-wai-gl list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Mirabella, Mathew J There seems to be a large number of languages to choose from when it comes to scripts on the server or on the client side. Should we then be specific about the language and include jsp, asp, javascript, perl script, c, java and vb script. Do we want to only focus on a subset of thees languages (say JSP and javascript only), or do we look at this subset (say javascript and jsp) as the core where comprahensive techniques "must" be available, and provide a forum for people to contribute with techniques in other languages which "may" be made available but don't strictly have to be. In addition to the list of technologies, should we include xsl (xslt) techniques as well. (Maybe DTD?). should we go further and include voiceML and MathML as we are doing with other xml languages such as xhtml and svg. And.... when we look at techniques with given languages, should we be specific about the version refered to such as css 1 or 2, html 4 or xhtml 1, etc. I'm not talking about client side or server side scripting; I'm talking about server configuration and management and the techniques of managing content via the server configuration. There are a number of things that can be done on the server side through proper configuration and management, whether it be Apache, MSIIS, iPlanet, whatever (but not PWS). You can do them either by managing the server's configuration directly, of if you do not have access or permission to the server's configuration, you can implement many of these techniques via placing the server directives in a .htaccess file in various directories. The server always looks for these files in the directory tree and addresses the content accordingly. It's true that sometimes these issues are addressed via server side scripting, and sometimes it is necessary to do that, only because the developer cannot implement that procedure any other way. But this is actually a poor method of implementation and reflects poorly on the organisation as a whole. It shows an inability to develop good procedural policy and strategies for managing their web content. It is far more effective to do these things through server configuration. That also allows the whole server to be better managed, it shows some sense of QA towards managing the delivery of content, and is somewhat self documenting in that the server configuration file becomes documentation of the state of content on that server, else you have to parse heaps of markup to be able to realise the state of that content. This type of approach is extremely important in XML content management. If you look at the Apache/Cocoon framework it is built on a architecture that allows one to address these issues; This framework allows you to deliver content on the fly, according to the capacities of the UA; for instance, it could deliver the page in standard XHTML/CSS and GIF for IE, XHTML/CSS and PNG for Mozilla, and for future Mozilla, when SVG is native, XHTML/CSS and SVG. If you want the content in PDF, it will generate and deliver it in PDF, or pure SVG. The same content could be delivered in XHTML2 to UAs with the capacity to render it, without changing the method of delivery to other UAs that can only manage older DTDs or Schemas. So in order to understand how to manage and deliver content in this medium it is very important to understand server side techniques, not necessarily scripting, but understanding how server, and three tiered architecture processes HTTP requests, and just what techniques are available to better enhance web services and accessibility. Geoff Deering
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2003 04:14:15 UTC