- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:30:22 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
One of the open questions on the Web at the moment is how much effort should be put into updating URI schemes including the news: scheme that relate to protocols other than HTTP. <quote cite= "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Aug/0057.html"> - We need to decide whether I should update the non-file: drafts to reflect current reality or simply to use the text from 1738. </quote> At least one blind friend responded to a query about accessible groupware that "if they would just implement a News server everything would be fine." That's one user with one installed base of skills and tools. However, there is the chance that there is a current body of usage that we should be surfacing in this discussion that I don't know about. What do people know about the current level of use of [Usenet] News by - people with disabilities - people with narrowband connections - people in the third world ?? One of the most-requested features of the web interface to the W3C email list archives is "wouldn't you just mail me a copy of this post, please?" Similarly, there could be a usability advantage to dealing with discussions that arise in News through a Newsreader interface and not a screen-reader-layered-over-web transcription of the News interface. The distinction here is that one could send people to a news article through DejaNews or via a news: URL that sends an NNTP request and processes the reply in a Newsreader rather than an HTML player. Does the difference merit investment in the maintenance of the news: URI specification (and its near twin nntp:)? Or is this an historic artifact not needed today? Al
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 15:30:56 UTC