I know nothing, well okay only a little.
a buddy at w3.org is pestering me because when I use linux / netscape to
send email his (list) server bounces it to him rather than the list.
simple solution please, ie what am I, or is he doing (wrong) to raise this
error message:
X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored?
full message follows
>
>Jonathan, these 2 emails ended up in my mailbox (rather than the list)
>because
>
> X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
>
>Can you please see what's wrong ?
>
>
>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivery-Date: Tue Dec 28 11:06:03 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from sophia.inria.fr by www47.inria.fr (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP
id LAA27592 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:06:01 +0100
(MET)
>Received: from tux.w3.org by sophia.inria.fr (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id
LAA07982 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:05:58 +0100
(MET)
>Received: (from danield@localhost)
> by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA08170
> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:05:58 -0500
>Received: from www19.w3.org (www19.w3.org [18.29.0.19])
> by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA08167
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:05:58 -0500
>Received: by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id FAA00061
> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:05:58 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:05:58 -0500 (EST)
>X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 28 05:05:57 1999
>Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
> by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id FAA00050
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:05:56 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from cask.force9.net (cask.force9.net [195.166.128.29])
> by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA08162
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:05:56 -0500
>Received: (qmail 8359 invoked from network); 28 Dec 1999 10:05:49 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO coors.free-online.net) (212.56.108.80)
> by cask.force9.net with SMTP; 28 Dec 1999 10:05:49 -0000
>Received: (qmail 10121 invoked from network); 28 Dec 1999 10:04:04 -0000
>Received: from 232.02-02.quay.dial.plus.net.uk (HELO peepo.com)
(212.159.69.232)
> by coors.free-online.net with SMTP; 28 Dec 1999 10:04:04 -0000
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Old-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:43:38 +0000
>From: jonathan chetwynd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: signbrowser
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51C-Caldera [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5 i586)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Scott Luebking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Subject: Re: Rolls of interfaces in your favorite colors (was Re:
Terminology)
>X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
>X-Envelope-To: w3c-wai-gl
>
>Scott raises a point which although mentioned on many occassions in this
>list
>never makes it to the guidelines.
>
>Once again could we all please spend some time considering how people
>access web
>pages.
>
>altavista and google have very different homepages and this helps define
>their
>audience and its demands.
>
>I would like to be able to configure things like:
>
>I am searching for 5-10k images with links to 100-500k
>images in pages containing less than 30 words.
>
>Then type in keywords to search for. Naturally I have other needs, and
>need to be
>able to switch quickly between them.
>
>Is anything like this possible currently?
>
>How would XML help with this?
>
>Scott Luebking wrote:
>
>> Hi, Charles
>>
>> I'm not sure you are understanding what I am saying. I'm referring to
>> well structured information as being that stored in XML. The XML
>> technology allows that information to be transformed into dynamically
>> generated HTML web pages according to each user's preferences. I can
>> get my dynamically generated web pages in the gloriously graphics form
>> and blind users can get their dynamically generated web pages organized
>> so that the semantic information is roughly in order or importance. The
>> HTML web pages may be "well structured" for graphic presentation and/or
>> "well structured" in a semantic sense. (However, these two types of
>> "well structured" are often different.)
>>
>> I'm not saying that non-blind people cannot get the blind version if
>> they want. I'm sorry if I conveyed that. Is it the terminology of what
>> to call this type of dynamically generated web page?
>>
>> I am not saying that the technology should be used only to generate web
>> pages dynamically for blind users.
>>
>> I am not saying that all web sites must move to dynamically generated
>> web pages.
>>
>> I am saying that if a web site is generating web pages dynamically, then
>> it probably has the capability of generating web pages in different
>> formats according to each user's preferences. (Portals and search
>> engines are two examples of web sites generating web pages dynamically.)
>> Users will benefit from being able to choose from a range of formats
>> which could include a highly graphical format and a format much more
>> organized along semantic lines.
>>
>> Dynamically generated web pages lets each user get the pages he or she
>> likes. Why should blind users use the type of dynamically generated web
>> pages I prefer with lots of visual graphics? Why should I use web pages
>> that will be easier for blind people to use but would be missing a rich
>> graphic structure I like?
>>
>> The impression I got was that people who were posting thought that the
>> one size fits all is preferable. While I agree that for non-dynamically
>> generated web pages a "one size" is probably necessary because of the
>> effort needed for multiple versions. However, when there is the
>> opportunity provided by technocology which can easily generate web page
>> in one format or another, why not let each user get the type of format
>> they prefer instead of forcing them all into one size which may not be
>> to their liking? If I can get the type of web page I prefer, why
>> should I be forced into a "standard" form which may not be as much to my
>> liking? Do you disagree with this? Would you insist that an
organization
>> not have its dynamic web page technology deliver my personalized
>> web pages using rich grahic texture, visually stimulating layout
>> and much graphic cuing?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> > Scott,
>> >
>> > unless I explicitly say so I write my own personal opinions.
>> >
>> > No, I am saying that it is stupid to write well-structured content for
blind
>> > people and then deny that content to people who do not identify
themselves as
>> > blind.
>> >
>> > Yes, I am suggesting that technology which enables all users to get
>> > dynamically generated, well-structured content should not be used only
to
>> > provide content for blind people, since this does not solve many of the
range
>> > of accessibility problems out there and therefore is a relatively
expensive
>> > use of resources. I think XML provides the technology to give all the
users
>> > out there sensible, well structured content, and to provide tat only to
>> > people who identify themselves as blind is a siginificant mistake, and
>> > seriously short-sells the community of people who have dificulty in
using the
>> > web as it is now due to disabilities of various kinds but happen not to
be
>> > blind.
>> >
>> > In more general terms I am suggesting that it makes more sense, if you
are
>> > trying to provide access to all users, to produce a single set of
content
>> > which is well designed, than to produce a number of different designs
for
>> > different groups, for the reasons I and others have outlined in this
thread.
>> >
>> > Search engines and portals do not give the option of how to view
websites,
>> > only the websites themselves or the client softwre do that at the
moment.
>> >
>> > Charles McCN
>
>
>
>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivery-Date: Tue Dec 28 11:30:47 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from sophia.inria.fr by www47.inria.fr (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP
id LAA27669 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:30:46 +0100
(MET)
>Received: from tux.w3.org by sophia.inria.fr (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id
LAA08898 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:30:43 +0100
(MET)
>Received: (from danield@localhost)
> by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09486
> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:30:44 -0500
>Received: from www19.w3.org (www19.w3.org [18.29.0.19])
> by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA09483
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:30:43 -0500
>Received: by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id FAA00367
> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:30:43 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:30:43 -0500 (EST)
>X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 28 05:30:42 1999
>Received: from tux.w3.org (tux.w3.org [18.29.0.27])
> by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id FAA00356
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:30:42 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from mashie.force9.net (mashie.force9.net [195.166.128.30])
> by tux.w3.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA09477
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 05:30:41 -0500
>Received: (qmail 17109 invoked from network); 28 Dec 1999 10:30:40 -0000
>Received: from coors.free-online.net (212.56.108.80)
> by mashie.force9.net with SMTP; 28 Dec 1999 10:30:40 -0000
>Received: (qmail 10270 invoked from network); 28 Dec 1999 10:05:41 -0000
>Received: from 232.02-02.quay.dial.plus.net.uk (HELO peepo.com)
(212.159.69.232)
> by coors.free-online.net with SMTP; 28 Dec 1999 10:05:41 -0000
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Old-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:05:15 +0000
>From: jonathan chetwynd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: signbrowser
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51C-Caldera [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5 i586)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Scott Luebking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Subject: Re: Rolls of interfaces in your favorite colors (was Re:
Terminology)
>X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored
>X-Envelope-To: w3c-wai-gl
>
>Scott raises a point which although mentioned on many occassions in this
>list
>never makes it to the guidelines.
>
>Once again could we all please spend some time considering how people
>access web
>pages.
>
>altavista and google have very different homepages and this helps define
>their
>audience and its demands.
>
>I would like to be able to configure things like:
>
>I am searching for 5-10k images with links to 100-500k
>images in pages containing less than 30 words.
>
>Then type in keywords to search for. Naturally I have other needs, and
>need to be
>able to switch quickly between them.
>
>Is anything like this possible currently?
>
>How would XML help with this?
>
>Scott Luebking wrote:
>
>> Hi, Charles
>>
>> I'm not sure you are understanding what I am saying. I'm referring to
>> well structured information as being that stored in XML. The XML
>> technology allows that information to be transformed into dynamically
>> generated HTML web pages according to each user's preferences. I can
>> get my dynamically generated web pages in the gloriously graphics form
>> and blind users can get their dynamically generated web pages organized
>> so that the semantic information is roughly in order or importance. The
>> HTML web pages may be "well structured" for graphic presentation and/or
>> "well structured" in a semantic sense. (However, these two types of
>> "well structured" are often different.)
>>
>> I'm not saying that non-blind people cannot get the blind version if
>> they want. I'm sorry if I conveyed that. Is it the terminology of what
>> to call this type of dynamically generated web page?
>>
>> I am not saying that the technology should be used only to generate web
>> pages dynamically for blind users.
>>
>> I am not saying that all web sites must move to dynamically generated
>> web pages.
>>
>> I am saying that if a web site is generating web pages dynamically, then
>> it probably has the capability of generating web pages in different
>> formats according to each user's preferences. (Portals and search
>> engines are two examples of web sites generating web pages dynamically.)
>> Users will benefit from being able to choose from a range of formats
>> which could include a highly graphical format and a format much more
>> organized along semantic lines.
>>
>> Dynamically generated web pages lets each user get the pages he or she
>> likes. Why should blind users use the type of dynamically generated web
>> pages I prefer with lots of visual graphics? Why should I use web pages
>> that will be easier for blind people to use but would be missing a rich
>> graphic structure I like?
>>
>> The impression I got was that people who were posting thought that the
>> one size fits all is preferable. While I agree that for non-dynamically
>> generated web pages a "one size" is probably necessary because of the
>> effort needed for multiple versions. However, when there is the
>> opportunity provided by technocology which can easily generate web page
>> in one format or another, why not let each user get the type of format
>> they prefer instead of forcing them all into one size which may not be
>> to their liking? If I can get the type of web page I prefer, why
>> should I be forced into a "standard" form which may not be as much to my
>> liking? Do you disagree with this? Would you insist that an
organization
>> not have its dynamic web page technology deliver my personalized
>> web pages using rich grahic texture, visually stimulating layout
>> and much graphic cuing?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> > Scott,
>> >
>> > unless I explicitly say so I write my own personal opinions.
>> >
>> > No, I am saying that it is stupid to write well-structured content for
blind
>> > people and then deny that content to people who do not identify
themselves as
>> > blind.
>> >
>> > Yes, I am suggesting that technology which enables all users to get
>> > dynamically generated, well-structured content should not be used only
to
>> > provide content for blind people, since this does not solve many of the
range
>> > of accessibility problems out there and therefore is a relatively
expensive
>> > use of resources. I think XML provides the technology to give all the
users
>> > out there sensible, well structured content, and to provide tat only to
>> > people who identify themselves as blind is a siginificant mistake, and
>> > seriously short-sells the community of people who have dificulty in
using the
>> > web as it is now due to disabilities of various kinds but happen not to
be
>> > blind.
>> >
>> > In more general terms I am suggesting that it makes more sense, if you
are
>> > trying to provide access to all users, to produce a single set of
content
>> > which is well designed, than to produce a number of different designs
for
>> > different groups, for the reasons I and others have outlined in this
thread.
>> >
>> > Search engines and portals do not give the option of how to view
websites,
>> > only the websites themselves or the client softwre do that at the
moment.
>> >
>> > Charles McCN
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our site www.peepo.com is a drive thru.
Move the mouse to slow down.
When you see a link of interest click on it.
It is a graphical aid to browsing the www.
We value your comments.
