Re: Acronyms and abbreviations revisited

to follow up on what Daniel Dardailler said:

> 
> Jason wrote:
> 
> > Just to clarify this proposal, I would emphasize the importance of not
> > only specifying what the link type should be, but also prescribing the
> > format of the dictionary file itself. Unnecessary compatibility problems
> > would arise if different software developers were allowed to decide upon
> > their own dictionary file formats. Hence, a single standard for the
> > dictionary file should be provided right from the outset.
> > 
> 
> Note that if we use a LINK as in
> 
> <LINK REL="AbrevDict" CONTENT="dictio.html">
> 
> There is always the possibility, as when used with Style sheet, to
> indicate the type:
> 
> <LINK REL="AbrevDict" CONTENT="dictio.xml" TYPE="text/xml">
> 
> I think this is as far as we can go in this context, and trying to
> define a file format for abbreviation dictionary should be a separate
> effort. 
> 

On the one hand, I have to agree with Daniel that the issue of
formats for a public dictionary interface should be worked out
for dictionaries in general, and not be done in a peculiar
fashion for the disability community.

On the other hand, the universal design approach suggests that we
recognize Braille users as a language minority, and because
language minorities have an interest in circulating dictionaries
separate from applications, that we recognize that our client
community has an interest in the success of a public dictionary
interface that is fully integrated with the application of HTML
and styles.

-- Al Gilman

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 1997 10:47:55 UTC