- From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:07:06 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
The definition of profile there is: <quote>A "profile" is a named and persistent representation of user preferences that may be used to configure a user agent. Preferences include input configurations, style preferences, etc. On systems with distinct user accounts, profiles enable users to reconfigure software quickly when they log on. Profiles may be shared with other users. Platform-independent profiles are useful for those who use the same user agent on different platforms.</quote> Different UA may have different, possibly incompatible sets of preferences, and may respond differently to some preferences. The quote suggests that profile is open-ended. For a user to understand all that can go into a profile, a means should be provided to allow full specification, to avoid surprises of an author-supplied change to a default UA behavior, possibly augmented by some user-supplied profile values. If the user provides a full specification, such surprise can be avoided. But for a user to provide a full stylesheet is an unlikely and burdensome requirement. For example how does one provide style differentiation for the presentation of recursively defined element contexts. Different combinations of browsers and AT may require different sets of preferences. Where is the set of controls that may be defined for platform-independent profiles? They may apply for a particular closed application: strict HTML 4.0 rendered on a particular user agent that runs on more than one OS. The mapping of (presumed same-function, same-side-effect) control across OS is chancy. Consistency is unlikely across UA on the same OS. Interaction of AT with different UA on the same OS is also chancy. We haven't been so presumptuous to try to standardize these. Anarchy is likely to win. Regards/Harvey Bingham
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2000 20:15:05 UTC