On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > you should probably look at CC/PP [1] as similar work Are you sure about that? My concern is that RDF introduces a whole new level of complexity, that doesn't really seem justified in such a simple negotiation. Unless perhaps we reduce it in the manner of dc: in HTML <meta> elements? One of the objectives of mod_accessibility is to be a low-overhead solution: it is by nature *much* faster and less obtrusive than betsie. HTTP headers are well-suited to a lean-and-mean system; RDF less so. > (it is about > providing profiles of user agents to make sure they get sent > appropriate content, which I think is pretty much what you are talking > about). Not entirely. The idea is not that the browser has a preferred version (though it may do within different renditions), but that the user will wish to switch frequently between different versions. > As far as I know there are no existing vocabularies which deal > with user requirements other than basic hardware profiles, but the > framework for them should work, and it would be, in my opinion, an > important implementation demonstration. Sure, the HTTP headers for this could be expressed as an RDF vocabulary. Still thinking about your post, and i reserve the right to change my mind about any of the above. Thanks for the thoughts:-) -- Nick KewReceived on Sunday, 12 January 2003 18:31:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:22 UTC