Re: definition Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

Hey, now we're getting somewhere...

So the keys are:

characters being rendered for people to read, as in writing, although it can
also be read out by a speech system, for example.

I like the technical aspects of the UAAG definitions, but I think it would be
nice if we had a simpler version as the first para of the definition. That
way, if I was going to get lost in the technical mumbo-jumbo I could at least
grab the first bit and more or less understand it.



On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

  I don't think that word is internationalized, but you should ask the I18N

word isn't necessarily internationalised, although it makes sense, but
charcters is enough I think. It actually falls down somewhat in sign
languages, which are the grey area bewteen traditional written languages that
this works well for, and visual symbolic systems that this doesn't. But I
thinnk we can live with it for now. My understanding is that we want to not
mean sign language as text content, since that would be one of the things we
would provide as an alternative.

  Does "read" include spoken or brailled? That should be made clear.

I tried to.

  Non-text content:
         Content that, when rendered, does not convey
         meaning through human language.

this is good. Hang on to it! (grab that man and make him stay in a working
group forever <grin/>

  Note that these definitions allow pictures of letters
  to be considered text content - is that what you expect?
  These definitions are post-rendering only, so if you
  have requirements related to formats (e.g., text formats),
  proceed with caution.

Yes, that was what I was getting at with my intial comment about pictures of
words. But I think that issue doesn't belong in definitions but in seperate
discussions where it is clear that they do or do not meet some requirement
being made of text or non-text content.

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 23:22:41 UTC