Thread Subject: Re: Second Life
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 1:35 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Second Life"
- Previous message in thread: Will Pearson: "Re: Second Life"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Hmmmm
HTTP is currently the way the W3C classifies Web content vs other Internet
activity.
We could use something else - but what. We can't say 'anything on the
Internet' or else all email and VoIP suddenly becomes "web content".
Do we have an idea besides HTTP for defining Web content?
I too am concerned about the day when we use something besides HTTP as the
mechanism, so would like to see a more generic definition.
Someone have one?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Will Pearson
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:16 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Jim wrote:
> "I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP"."
>
> I agree. Classifying something based on the protocol it uses
> could give rise to misclassification in the future.
> Protocols are a single feature of something and they are not
> always unique to a specific category.
>
> Will
>
>
- Next message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Second Life"
- Previous message in Thread: Will Pearson: "Re: Second Life"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
