Authors propose defaults RE: Access Element

[the Cc list is getting out of hand here...]

My mate John Foliot said, inter alia...

>  I have argued that the author must not have
> control over the end user's behavior norms, and allowing the content
> author
> to bind *their* idea of what is 'best' is wrong; it flys in the face of
> numerous other ideals and precedents,

Actually it follows the CSS precedent. Authors propose a default - and the
harder they work to make sure their default is compatible with similar
sites the better, but we are talking about the area beyond useful formal
standardisation. (That is the area covered by rel attributes in HTML4,
where behaviour standardises on a per-browser basis).

But in this case the author's suggestion has to be subject to the browser,
as well as to the user's demands.

The alternative to having the author pick keys is to have the browser
assign them according to some kind of algorithm. Nothing stops the browser
doing this, so if it is useful you can expect good browsers to offer the
possibility. For example if a role is a subtype of a known role where a
user has expressed a preference. Or if a common set of bindings for roles
in a given language are published, a user may prefer everything relevant
be remapped to those bindings. (These two example can, of course, be

But if someone comes up with something that is apparently entirely new,
what is the best shortcut? Let's not think about search, because that is
covered by the rel attribute. Instead let's think of the functionality of
retrieving photo descriptions from a description broker - something that
could become a big service but currently isn't.

It seems to me useful to *allow* the author to *suggest* a default
binding.Users don't want to have to suggest it until they actually need to
use it and decide that it doesn't make sense so they should re-map it.
Computers are not that good at user interface design. Which leaves me with
the content author as the best person to give an *initial suggestion*.


Charles McCathieNevile                       
   Here's one we prepared earlier:

Received on Sunday, 5 June 2005 12:08:09 UTC