W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-tech-comments@w3.org > October 2000

RE: Wish List for XHTML

From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:57:24 -0400
To: "'Eric Hansen'" <ehansen7@hotmail.com>, wai-tech-comments@w3.org
Cc: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
Message-id: <B49B36B1086DD41187DC000077893CFB8B4439@rosnt46.ets.org>
I would like to amend my earlier comments.

For any piece of an equivalent I'd like markup that will designate whether
that piece is "complete" in the sense of providing a full instance any of
several 'parts' of equivalent (in relation to the equivalency target):
'description of important aspects', 'complete
description','summary','expansion', 'title', etc., and if so, what part.

Furthermore, I would like like to have markup that will indicate whether any
such piece is intended by the author as a 'substitute', 'supplement', or
'completely equal alternative' to the equivalency target.

I have lots of thoughts about tables, but that is more than I can readily
document on short notice.

I hope that this is useful.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Hansen [mailto:ehansen7@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:32 PM
> To: wai-tech-comments@w3.org
> Cc: ehansen@ets.org
> Subject: Wish List for XHTML
> To: wai-tech-comments@w3.org
> From: Eric Hansen
> Re: Wish List for XHTML
> Al,
> I am not very familiar with the XHTML specification but will 
> share with you 
> very briefly a short wish list.
> Main Objective:
> The biggest thing that I would like would be a flexible yet 
> powerful way of 
> associating equivalents and their equivalency targets. Ian 
> indicates that 
> much of what I am looking for can be provided through RDF and 
> my perusal of 
> that specification suggests that this may be the case. It 
> seems to me that 
> it would be helpful to have some of the capabilities built into XHTML.
> I want to be able to indicate if the equivalency relationship between 
> equivalency target, whether the equivalent is required by some 
> specification, and if so, the identity of the specification.
> I would like to have a container of the equivalency target 
> and another 
> container for the equivalent. The equivalent must be able to 
> exist in pieces 
> with different URIs. The same would be helpful for the 
> equivalency target.
> Secondary Objective:
> For each end of the equivalency relationship (Equivalent and 
> Equivalency 
> Target), I would like the author to specify the intended 
> audience based on 
> the role that content plays in the instruction or information 
> product. For 
> example, a sign language video could be for Core (general 
> audiences) if the 
> instruction is about sign language videos. ([Core=general 
> audience (a.k.a. 
> people without any disability [plus people with disabilities who can 
> benefit]) or Supplementary=specifically for people with disabilities).
> Other Ideas:
> For the equivalency target, I would like to be able to specify the 
> presentation type (Classical multimedia, audio-only, 
> video-only, graphic, 
> table (etc.), simple text, complex text, etc.)
> For the equivalent, I would like to be able to specify the 
> equivalent type 
> (text equivalent [and if so what kind], non-text equivalent 
> [and if so what 
> kind]).
> For any piece, I'd like to be able to specify content type, 
> ideal-disability 
> status of audience, base natural language, possibly a script 
> for unwrapping 
> the content (if necessary), possibly additional information 
> about how to 
> render the content.
> Benefits
> Basically, the benefit of such capabilities is that they can 
> help the user 
> find information he or she is seeking or that is likely to be most 
> accessible.
> I hope that this is helpful. Please let me know if you have questions.
> Best wishes,
> - Eric Hansen
> ______________________________________________________________
> ___________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 13:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:24:24 UTC