Re: accessibility review and 4.0 release

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Al Gilman wrote:

> At one point I believe that Dave Raggett and I were humming in tune
> to the tune that the link type should be for dictionaries and the
> dictionary should be for abbreviations, but the link type should not
> be so narrow as to be just for abbreviation dictionaries.  Does
> this change cause you any heartburn?
> 
> --
I suppose the critical issue here is whether a user agent would need to
distinguish between different types of dictionaries that might be linked
into a document. What other kinds of dictionaries did you have in mind?
The user agent must obviously be able to recognise that the link refers to
a dictionary which is to be used to control the speech output by
substituting each occurrence of a defined term (such as an abbreviation)
with its definition (for example the expansion of the abbreviation). I
agree in general terms that a unified approach to dictionaries would be
desirable, provided that the foregoing requirement can be satisfied. I
have also noted Daniel's response to the suggestion of implementing
phonetic markup as a dictionary. Clearly, this possibility also needs to
be considered here.

Received on Monday, 15 September 1997 19:15:20 UTC