W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: accessible sites in i-mode

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:45:23 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>, sub@shanx.com
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

At 05:39 AM 2002-07-13, Masayasu Ishikawa wrote:
>Probably further discussion should be moved to www-mobile@w3.org or
>somewhere else.

Moving the thread to a more focused, deliverable-oriented context is OK if we 
a) identify the dependencies and 
b) define a responsible party [probably an organizational unit, not an individual] and 
report-back mechanism to make whatever happens be accountable to this 
community where there is clearly an interest.


a) this issue comes up for Tiny devices used in Mobile situations
b) this issue comes up for people in situations where literacy cannot be assumed
[examples range widely, including dyslexia and polyglot user communities]
c) we need one, or as compact as possible, a plan for how to do this to gain deployment

You only need to compare the role of 
1) neo-ideographs such as Bliss symbols in accessibility with the role of 
2) neo-ideographs such as iMode emoji in device independence with the role of 
3) neo-ideographs such as the international standard fabric care symbols in i18n

to see we have a common interest.




Just as HTML has been exploring schema annotations as a way of capturing role information
in linkage indications, the XAG contemplates dialect-coiners using this or some
equivalent facilitation solution to bind sense to grammars more generally.


In the Mobile theater of operation we will have the greatest cost per character and the
greatest pressure to use private characters where a syntactic XML element [or other recognizable pattern] should be used.

Let me float this to the Hypertext Coordination Group to learn who should take the
role of Office of Primary [or currently next] Responsibility (OPR) for this issue.


>"Shashank Tripathi" <sub@shanx.com> wrote:
>> I have no idea what works in German i-mode devices..any idea where the
>> difference lies? Does the specificaiton there consist only of standard
>> cHTML tags?
>I happened to find English documentation (only available in PDF) from
>the Dutch i-mode site, at:
>    http://www.imode.nl/imode/0,1302,2X1046,00.html
>Looks like what is used in Europe is so-called i-mode HTML version 2.0,
>while the latest version used in Japan is version 4.0.  The major
>difference with i-mode HTML 2.0 used in Japan is those emoji mapping,
>and support for numeric charcter references like &#8364; for the Euro
>Probably further discussion should be moved to www-mobile@w3.org or
>somewhere else.
>Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
>W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2002 08:45:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:10 UTC