danbri: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible."
danbri: "Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, photosensitivity and combinations of these."
danbri: "Following these guidelines will also often make your Web content more usable to users in general. "
danbri: See also overview of docs doc.
danbri: "Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, photosensitivity and combinations of these."
danbri: "Following these guidelines will also often make your Web content more usable to users in general. "
danbri: See also overview of docs doc.
Shepard: Tool for analysing and visualising workflow and social/information networks in wikis, targeted at knowledge management in companies
danbri: I'm happy to see this list come back to life. If you're ideas, requirements or code for RDF in Ruby, please jump in. Even if only with encouragement.
danbri: Python-heads welcome too; at some levels it's practically the same language.
timbl: Arbitrary fragmentation?
danbri: In what sense? Are you against language-specific software collaborations?
danbri: I'd be v happy if there was a cross-language consensus on common RDF API. But right now we barely have common code in Ruby let alone APIs to it.
danbri: If there's a non-fragmenting API rubyists should simply adopt, please do tell the list about it asap!
timbl: I just wonder whether the spit between Python and Ruby has depleted the resources available to [RDF in] each.
danbri: Well, I stopped working on RubyRDF when you and DanC argued that a few years ago. But there are 1000s of sites built with Ruby now (rails etc) so having an RDF solution for them seems important...
danbri: Python-heads welcome too; at some levels it's practically the same language.
timbl: Arbitrary fragmentation?
danbri: In what sense? Are you against language-specific software collaborations?
danbri: I'd be v happy if there was a cross-language consensus on common RDF API. But right now we barely have common code in Ruby let alone APIs to it.
danbri: If there's a non-fragmenting API rubyists should simply adopt, please do tell the list about it asap!
timbl: I just wonder whether the spit between Python and Ruby has depleted the resources available to [RDF in] each.
danbri: Well, I stopped working on RubyRDF when you and DanC argued that a few years ago. But there are 1000s of sites built with Ruby now (rails etc) so having an RDF solution for them seems important...
danbri: Peter asked me about best form of this, I suggested writing up a proposal and I'd solicit feedback.
danbri: "HTML 4.0 [1] defines a <link/> element that defines a relationship between a document and another resource on the Internet. Such a resource can be a JabberID. Examples include the JabberID of a document author, a Multi-User Chat [2] room where the document can be discussed, or a Publish-Subscribe [3] node where RSS or Atom feeds related to the document are hosted (e.g., see RFC 4287 [4]). This specification defines a recommended approach for linking t
DanC: hmm... 'The value of the 'rel' attribute SHOULD be a link relation as registered in the IANA MIME Atom Link Relations Registry [7].'
DanC: see also ISSUE-27 rel-ownership @rel value ownership, registry consideration in the HTML WG issue tracker