Re: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue? [was: Draft TAG Finding:...]

On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 11:20, Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> This one is a tempest in a teapot.  In the spectrum of data formats, FOs 
> sit beside PDF.  There are advantages and disadvantages to trade off 
> between the two, none of which have the remotest architectural input.
> 
> I would however, support an assertion in the architecture document that 
> important information SHOULD be stored and (optionally) delivered with 
> markup that is as semantically rich as achievable, and that separation 
> of semantic and presentational markup, to the extent possible, is 
> architecturally sound.

Having raised this issue, I'm heartened to see that W3C is
addressing it in the WAI domain, and I could probably
live with just leaving it there, since we have:

"This document does not address architectural design goals covered by
targetted W3C specifications:

   [...]
   2. Accessibility; see W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative."

	-- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0805-archdoc


Perhaps we could point with a bit higher resolution into the
WAI work. Hmm... meanwhile,

The bit of WAI spec that Sean referred us to
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlgl-20010829#cp2_1

doesn't explicitly mention XSL-FO. So maybe it would
be nice to be a bit more explicit somewhere.

As to Sean's process point...

"I'm not sure how much of this is an architecural issue rather than
accessibility; I suppose that this is for the chairs of the relevant
groups
to decide."

Just FYI, the TAG got confused, in one of our telcons, about just who
gets to say what's an issue and what's not. We discoverd
that it's in our charter; it's *not* the chair:

"# By a majority vote, the TAG must agree to consider an issue as having
sufficient breadth and technical impact to warrant its consideration. "
	-- http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 13:07:19 UTC