- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:45:23 -0400
- 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. <explore axis="dependencies"> 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 http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9707/carepcon.htm to see we have a common interest. <conclusion> <dependencies> <stakeholder>Mobile</stakeholder> <stakeholder>Internationalization</stakeholder> <stakeholder>Accessibility</stakeholder> </dependencies> </conclusion> </explore> 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. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XLink.html http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML/ 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. Al >"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 € for the Euro >symbol. > >Probably further discussion should be moved to www-mobile@w3.org or >somewhere else. > >Regards, >-- >Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org >W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2002 08:45:28 UTC