Re: Finding agreement on common purpose

-1   I don’t think you can say  “authors can use any list — but that won’t work  — but we will assume they will use some path of least resistance and that would work.    And that sounds like what is being said here.

There are ways to make this testable and workable — so  I’m not sure why they are not being specified and done.  IT seems like it is felt it would be restrictive or something.  Not sure what.  

But I think any solution has to contain the list I posted earlier  (several times) 

1)  what purposes need to be marked 
2) EXACTLY how they need to be marked (or exactly where it is described how they will be marked )(e.g. referencing some standard)
3) if other terms are allowed — where the mapping of those terms back to the standard terms exists
4) the mapping must be in some standard format
5) the pointer to the mapping must be in some standard place on the page (so AT can find the pointer, find the mapping,  read the mapping and map the terms on the page back to the list of purposes required in the SC 

if it can be shown how a piece of AT written today will be able to find the meanings of a page written next year  with terms defined next year in any other way — the we can talk about that.     But this is the only way I know of. 

best

g
     


> On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
> 
> Had a useful chat with AWK this afternoon. Whilst my concern that people could dream up their own sets of tokens remains, I can accept that given a path of least resistance, authors are unlikely to do it. In other words, happy to +1 AWK's proposed wording for this SC.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 05:06:10 UTC