DD: Could we get a description of ADL?
SP: A language to describe how accessible a document is and describe the accessibility evaluation. It could describe which checkpoints the doc complies to.
DD: It's machine readable.
SP: It should be as technology independent as we can. Have to discuss what it does. Language not discussed yet, but could be XML. Could also express accessibility of CSS. We're now changing from WCAG 1.0 (which was HTML based) to 2.0 which is more general.
DD: Use of RDF?
SP: Would be used, yes. It's metadata for doc.
DD: Like a schema?
SP: Could write a schema.
DD: Apply schema to document?
SP: If RDF used then does not need schema. List of elements in namespace. Dublin core doesn't use schema.
WL: ADL purpose - expressed in RDF.
SP: Put ADL in module?
DD: Has anyone looked at Amaya re annotation? We could use annotation system to add accessibility evaluation. Stored in RDF.
WL: If people use constructs then assertions about comments. Could be pointers to specific guidelines. Can't use XHTML with RDF without modularizatrion.
DD: Don't have to use RDF within file. Could store in separate doc like Amaya
SP: Amaya doesn't have link to RDF file. Must consult annotation server which is big problem.
DD: Link between doc and annotation is problem?
SP: yes. And validation in RDF is impossible.
WL: Could be linked like stylesheets use now.
SP: Must be standard. Need to know what the RDF file is.
DD: Issue 1 - use RDF or what? Issue 2 - How do you bind doc to ADL?
WL: Does modularization of XML solve this?
SP: Yes, as far as I know.
DD: to Sean - Is that a DTD module?
SP: it will be a DTD module. That's all there is. Limited to XML right now
DD: Modularization will help. XML schema is way of future.
SP: There is no release of XML schema for HTML.
DD: For ADL if we can create a RDF statements for doc then is usable. Can describe accessibility for Java script. Example: can point to paragraph or element and using RDF describe problem (color set or something). What tools will use it? What is audience? How will it be used in 6 months or a year?
SP: People who create new languages. People who use new languages.
CR: We could use now in current evaluation tools. Could be used by browsers in future.
WL: Detail is where it's at. Some conformance doesn't matter to some users. Others matter. RDF will enable this.
SP: yes. Can create new languages from RDF.
WL: We have a problem with coding behind RDF but is transparent.
SP: yes semantic web. Has great potential if we work together. Tech will be hidden to user.
DD: Thinking of charter: ER creates description. Other WAI groups have input. Need common framework for XML designers. Real software could use this.
WL: Al Gilman suggests that cross working group task force.
DD: Who's going to face to face on Dec. 4 & 5 in Washington (ER & PF)? HB, maybe BM, not DB, not SP, not CR
WL: phone conf could be used. Was OK in Bristol.
DD: We will look into. Agenda for meeting - have talk about ADL. PF group can talk about XML. Look into future.
DD: Don't know outcome of ADL developments. What will they be?
WL: Will list conformance of doc.
SP: and more. Can mix RDF
DD: Has been discussion with Charles MN about putting accessibility features in doc. As XML matures in industry, W3C will not be needed. But is need to express accessibility info.
WL: Separate lang not needed. XML is too vague.
SP: XHTML is a display format while XML is data format. Modularization of XHTML makes it more like data.
DD: (Suggestions for several uses of RDF).
WL: is XHTML 2.0 correct for that purpose?
DD: Why would you create XHTML WAI?
WL: If you could influence then it is OK. Can create XML TRACE brand, right? DD: Right.
WL: Then let's do that.
SP: Can override XHTML. Is still display format. Is not pure XML yet. Need to make changes to XHTML. We need module to change XHTML. Use RDF.
DD: Why outside of XHTML core family?
HB: Must be many XML dialects. Must do our job right.
WL: Don't bother with XHTML?
HB: No, serves a purpose.
SP: XHTML 2.0 is more pure. Very XML based lang.
DD: What do you mean by 'display language'?
SP: Modularization has a presentation module as a part of 1.1. If 2.0 is accessibility then OK. Won't be though if namespace is still there. Modularization allows for presentation markup. We need to add semantics to presentation.
WL: If anti semantic then don't let in.
HB: Like converting <b> to <strong>.
SP: What about <hr>? We need to add semantic meaning to it.
HB: in SGML we wanted to separate structure and content.
SP: Attach behaviors to that?
DD: In 2.0 can still create presentation modules and are poorly designed.
$Date: 2000/11/20 18:07:03 $ Chris Ridpath