- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:54:05 -0500
- To: jkorpela@cs.tut.fi
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Hi, Jukka. I'm still wrestling with what to recommend by way of 'deployable' (what authors will actually use) techniques for clarifying words that are likely stumbling blocks for web consumers. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060117/Overview.html#meaning-idioms At the W3C Technical Plenary I got enthusiastic about the approaches called "Microformats." http://microformats.org/ Things I like about it include: - use the metadata attributes @class etc. that already are in HTML and document how you are using them. - write your usage explanation in a literate programming style, again using what HTML already gives you to advantage. But then I looked at the XMDP description: http://www.gmpg.org/xmdp/description I rapidly came to the conclusion that they should have used TABLE instead of DL for their HTML fabric for definitions. Funny, you had already been down that road. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/def.html#markup What do you think of the Microformats technology? Is this a promising track for "definition-definition" knowledge? It would be good to get something out there that would do the job of documenting the logic of glossary entries and thereby enable affordable clarification and assistive processing of troublesome words? Otherwise how should we move ahead? Al PS: This metadata-mechanics question is also applicable to the say-as issue as regards the Pronunciation Lexicon Specification from Voice Browser. http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110403c03e134b2a16@%5B10.0.1.2%5D
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 17:04:01 UTC