Rich: Also, we already have role so why are you now inserting contenttype. Lets be consistent. I am not going to go back to the HTML working group to do a name change for role. [Lisa: ] In the email snippet you forwarded us I content type in an example for DC metadata as a brainstorm type thing, where by the html would not need a role for links - (that is why I cc'ed Liddy to see if there was an existing dc tag name for the same concept.) I do not think the DC tag is related or controlled by the XHTML specification. Maybe what you are referring to is my response to a different email of Becky's which was a proposal from you and her together for a new XHTML attribute called "access" for replacing access keys using what I had been calling until then contentType, in the access key proposal to PF. In response to that I wrote: <quote> I would suggest something more descriptive the the term "access"- such as role, or type. Swap uses the term ContentType . Then it is more likely to be used by people who don't care about accessibility, but want to use it for a different application, such as what Microsoft are doing for RSS feeds on a page. If people are using it for different applications and provide state of the art accessibility as a by product - that is a big win in my book. </quote> I then continued using ContentTypes in my examples. Was that the problem? Keep well Lisa E.g. page level in meta data like <meta name= pageType content="UB:siteMap"> (sorry Liddy - i havn't looked up how to do this legally)
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 05:34:56 UTC