RE: Glossary "non-text content" Small Nit

Christophe,
 
Yes, I think your proposal would address my concerns.

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Christophe Strobbe
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:58 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Glossary "non-text content" Small Nit
> 
> 
> Hi Loretta,
> 
> At 18:51 12/10/2005, you wrote:
> 
> >I am worried about the proposed change because it seems to rule out
> >things like PDF's presentation of text, where a mapping is available
> >from the content to the Unicode representation, but the "native"
> >representation is not Unicode.
> 
> Does my proposal address your concern?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christophe Strobbe
> 
> 
> >Loretta Guarino Reid
> >lguarino@adobe.com
> >Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
On
> > > Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:04 AM
> > > To: 'Chris Ridpath'; 'WAI WCAG List'
> > > Subject: RE: Glossary "non-text content" Small Nit
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this wording (Chris's) is much better at getting at the
> >problem
> > >
> > > Unless I hear otherwise - I am changing the text we will review
later
> >to
> > > this wording.  This allows us to get rid of the awkwardly worded
note.
> > >
> > > Thanks Chris.
> > >
> > > Others - comment if you see a hole.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > >
> > >  -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > > Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> > > Director - Trace R & D Center
> > > University of Wisconsin-Madison
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
On
> > > Behalf
> > > Of Chris Ridpath
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:43 AM
> > > To: WAI WCAG List
> > > Subject: Glossary "non-text content" Small Nit
> > >
> > >
> > > Our glossary defines non-text content as "Content that is not
> >represented
> > > by
> > > a Unicode character or sequence of Unicode characters".
> > >
> > > Images and other binary content are often converted to Unicode
> >characters
> > > for transmission over the Internet. It could be interpreted that
> >images
> > > and
> > > other binary content can be represented as Unicode characters
which is
> >not
> > > the intent of our glossary term.
> > >
> > > I suggest that we add the text "in its native format" to the
glossary
> >term
> > > so it reads:
> > >
> > > "Content that is not represented by a Unicode character or
sequence of
> > > Unicode characters in its native format."
> > >
> > > There is a note in the Wiki stating:
> > > It is possible to encrypt or encode any content including binary
files
> > > using
> > > Unicode characters but that would not "represent the content using
> >Unicode
> > > characters."
> > >
> > > I think that the character encoded file does represent (stand for,
> > > symbolize) the original file. If we add the "in its native format"
> >text
> > > then
> > > this note could be removed.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> 
> --
> Christophe Strobbe
> K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on
> Document Architectures
> Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
> tel: +32 16 32 85 51
> http://www.docarch.be/
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 17:14:18 UTC