Chris Bizer wrote:
> Hi Ryan and Emmanuel,
>
> I'm back from Crete and I'm following the discussion again.
>
>>>If Chris is amenable to our discussion direction thus far, I'll send out
>>>a revised proposal. As we said, requirements agreement should come
>>>first so we don't get bogged down in technical discussions that will
>>>ultimately go unused.
>
> As I said before, I agree with the requirements that Emmanuel send last
> week.
Hi Chris,
To establish one point in the next mail I'm going to send, that's not
quite the question I asked. I asked if you were amenable to the
discussion, which is not precisely the same as what Emmanuel initially
sent. To condense where that discussion seems to have lead:
- be able to associate symbols with specific graphical regions/entities
of the displayed document. By regions and entities, we mean things like
"the object that represents the resource", "the object that represents
the property name", "the object that represents the property value". By
"associate" we mean custom hooks to identify those regions for later CSS
selection.
- be able to apply styling instructions based on conditions at the
source RDF model level, i.e. be able to say things like "color in red
all ex:age properties that have a value > to 47". This is not a core
consideration but may influence the overall design.
- drop any layout consideration, as layout portability is not achievable
(closely coupled with the application's underlying representation paradigm)
--
Ryan Lee ryanlee_at_w3.org
W3C Research Engineer +1.617.253.5327
http://simile.mit.edu/
Received on Mon Jun 13 2005 - 21:02:34 EDT