RE: XHTML 2.0 Architectural/Accessibility Issues

Sean wrote:
> So, what I really want is consensus on the matter. A common syntax
> *would* be a very nice thing to have, to avoid things like XPointer.
> XPointer was the thing that brought this issue up, for me. [I know
> you've already got the following, but I want to spell it out for
> reference purposes, and to clarify the position to myself.] Consider
> if you have an audio transcript being served up as a variant of some
> audio piece. In other words, when you visit:-
> 
>    http://example.org/myAudio
> 
> Depending upon your "accept" headers, you will either get back an XML
> transcript of the audio, or the audio as some other form. Now, it is
> quite possible to use an XPointer to point to some part of the
> transcript, for example:-
> 
>    http://example.org/myAudio#xpointer(id("blargh")
> 
> But that XPointer may (and probably will not) apply to the audio media
> type, so it's a dodgy URI-reference.
> 
> Consistent fragment syntax? I'd settle for almost anything, it'd be
> better than what we have now. We already have the ID datatype for XML,
> so why not get that consistently deployed? 


Could this be an author responsibility?
Thinking of DAISY, which uses smil, the master source is taken as 
something outside the XML. this master file links out to
a)the text using a url+fragid,
b)the audio, using a time offset.
I guess a video could be the same?

With xlink principles, the link database would be the place to hold links,
from some master out into all media, from a common place.
That would provide the 'synchronisation' that DAISY has.

It does rely on the provision of a master file (DAISY name for the link
database)
from which all xrefs are found. Also on the realisation that this document
will
be delivered in n media.

HTH DaveP





- 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
system.

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 03:26:50 UTC