Jim,
Browsers need to map RDF to an API to describe how to interact with an
object. This requires a good RDF parser.
Furthermore, it is becoming less likely that transcoding will be done in
the middleware to process it since more often than not the UI will be
constructed on the client.
Rich Schwerdtfeger
STSM, Software Group Accessibility Strategist/Master Inventor
Emerging Internet Technologies
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
schwer@us.ibm.com, Phone: 512-838-4593,T/L: 678-4593
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
Frost
Jim Ley
<jim.ley@gmail.co
m> To
Sent by: Richard
w3c-wai-pf-reques Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
t@w3.org cc
Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>,
Becky Gibson/Westford/IBM@Iris, Jon
07/10/2004 06:17 Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, Liddy
AM Nevile <liddy.nevile@motile.net>,
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org,
w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, wai-gl@w3c.org
Subject
Re: Access Key alternative -in the
wrong place?
Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
>Another concern that is growing for me is RDF. One of the problems we
>are faced with on RDF is that NO browser supports it.
I'm not exactly sure how you suggest browsers should or need to
support RDF for this, it's not being served up to a user as bare RDF,
but simply using RDF to provide useful additional metadata.
The metadata need not be consumed by mainstream browsers, indeed I'm
not sure what usefulness mozilla would have in doing so to the
majority of its users, however it's easy to extend the browser with
plugins to provide the functionality in an AT sense.
Or do you propose inventing a new metadata format?
Jim.
