thanks Tony it is early
it is an initiative from those that want it - rather than those that provide it. I think your assessment is correct. and your list Anyone else have thoughts Gregg > On Jun 19, 2018, at 5:06 AM, Tony Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Gregg. > > Thanks for bringing this up, it was pretty interesting reading through the > proposed standard. In my opinion, we definitely need to stay aware of this, > both in terms of creating content that uses the new standard, and in terms of > configuring related options in browsers and other programs that present HTML > to end users. > > However, it's pretty early on from what I can see. Even if all content were > already written to use the standard, as far as I know there aren't any > programs that support it. Although we could certainly write content that > uses the new standard and build our own tools to make use of the new > information now, the impact would be limited compared to the effort involved. > > In my opinion we should really wait until a major browser, screen reader, or > other commonly used program adds even partial support for the standard. The > effort involved in creating and testing content that uses the standard would > drop, and we could reasonably expect there to be a wave of like-minded groups > updating their content. > > That to me seems like the right point to engage, and we should be > enthusiastic and early adopters once the time is right. For example, we > could: > Try out the standard in our own UIs. > Work to document and add support in Morphic for the related settings. > Communicate with others working with the new standard. > Feed back to vendors as we encounter problems. > Contribute tools and knowledge to help others adopt the standard more easily. > Again, that's my gut feel, I'm interested to hear what everyone else thinks. > > Cheers, > > > Tony > > > On 19 June 2018 at 04:15, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Should we be following and contributing to these? So that they will work > with Morphic? > > g > > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Michael Cooper <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Labels for personalization semantics issues >> Date: June 18, 2018 at 1:55:18 PM EDT >> To: Personalization TF <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Resent-From: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> I set up a few new labels for personalization semantics issues: >> >> features - Features that should be supported by personalization semantics - >> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/features >> <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/features> >> implementation - Approaches to add personalization semantics to content - >> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/implementation >> <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/implementation> >> structure - Ways to structure the vocabulary that impact its features - >> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/structure >> <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/labels/structure> >> I labeled some of the existing issues with these labels, but was using hasty >> judgement about which ones matched. Feel free to adjust the labels. I didn't >> try to tackle all the issues. We might need additional labels, there three >> were just ones that came up in today's call as ones we need. Issues can have >> more than one label. >> >> Michael > > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.gpii.net/mailman/listinfo/architecture > <https://lists.gpii.net/mailman/listinfo/architecture> > >
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gpii.net/mailman/listinfo/architecture
