dajobe: these schemas seem to be working OK now with xsv
xover: The YayHooray! folk speaking of:
xover:
xover: mook would rather see:
xover:
xover: I would tend to agree! :-)
xover: Fits nicely with the new W3C Markup Validator design too. :-)
AaronSw: Indeed! Would make quite a nice combination.
sandro: I think the trick is to layer a view over the current W3C site. Big job, though.
xover: The thread eventually runs into bashing the w3.org site for poor design/structure.
xover: Some good contructive bashing it was too. :-)
AaronSw: Heh! "Stylistically there is little or no consistancy in graphical headers in any section bar the logo. Text, though printable and large is very difficult to read because of the full-page column span and the fact there are multiple inline links in the paragraphs." Crazy designers.
danbri: Structure? There's a structure?
xover: danbri sums up the entire thread in 4 words! :-)
AaronSw: Getting back to the logo... the W3C should probably be replaced with something that communicates the idea of "valid"/correct
danbri: I'm very fond of the W3C site, I have to say. But structure isn't its strongpoint. Multiple views into the (essentially unstructured) content is the idea, on my u/standing.
danbri: Now if only we had some technology for cataloguing and annotating and characterising web content... hmm...
danbri: Nah, it'd never work
sandro: exactly.
xover:
xover: mook would rather see:
xover:
xover: I would tend to agree! :-)
xover: Fits nicely with the new W3C Markup Validator design too. :-)
AaronSw: Indeed! Would make quite a nice combination.
sandro: I think the trick is to layer a view over the current W3C site. Big job, though.
xover: The thread eventually runs into bashing the w3.org site for poor design/structure.
xover: Some good contructive bashing it was too. :-)
AaronSw: Heh! "Stylistically there is little or no consistancy in graphical headers in any section bar the logo. Text, though printable and large is very difficult to read because of the full-page column span and the fact there are multiple inline links in the paragraphs." Crazy designers.
danbri: Structure? There's a structure?
xover: danbri sums up the entire thread in 4 words! :-)
AaronSw: Getting back to the logo... the W3C should probably be replaced with something that communicates the idea of "valid"/correct
danbri: I'm very fond of the W3C site, I have to say. But structure isn't its strongpoint. Multiple views into the (essentially unstructured) content is the idea, on my u/standing.
danbri: Now if only we had some technology for cataloguing and annotating and characterising web content... hmm...
danbri: Nah, it'd never work
sandro: exactly.
AaronSw: Explains how NSI and ICANN were controlled by a secret spook organization. Incredible.
larsbot: Definitely recommended reading. Was about to chump it myself.
larsbot: Definitely recommended reading. Was about to chump it myself.
Seth: how do you form a uri for this group?
shellac_: news:comp.ai.edu
Seth: the uri of this group is news:comp.ai.edu
shellac_: news:comp.ai.edu
Seth: the uri of this group is news:comp.ai.edu
danbri: Mentioned on mozilla-rdf yesterday. I can't get it working in Moz 1.0 or 1.1a. Here's the source RDF dump (apart from lack of prefixes on about=, looks OK).
danbri: See the XUL template primer for info on how this should work, and the RDF-in-Mozilla FAQ for more on the associated APIs.
danbri: The XUL template reference is the main doc, btw. I'm not sure how up to date it is. Investigating.
danbri: See the XUL template primer for info on how this should work, and the RDF-in-Mozilla FAQ for more on the associated APIs.
danbri: The XUL template reference is the main doc, btw. I'm not sure how up to date it is. Investigating.
AaronSw: I don't like this proposal because the actual content of the RFC/I-D is in a W3C document. I doubt this will fly with the IETF.
AaronSw: This page also has an out-of-date <title> ("Creating and updating charters").