Hi lar, I don't think your comments were political. It only gets that way when the discussion degenerates into an argument about whose solution is better. We should guard against that. Let's focus on the features or behavior of our pet solutions that we like the most, and talk about getting them implemented. As long as our discussions move in that direction, we'll be making progress. I found your ideas about structured speech markup interesting. Have you looked at Sun's work in this area? Brian. >>>>> "Hanslar" == Hans Zoebelein <hzo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Hanslar> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 18 Mar 1999 Hanslar> 18:10:24 -0000 From: Lar Kaufman <lark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Hanslar> blinux-develop-request@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: bomb shell Hanslar> I apologize for making remarks that may have appeared Hanslar> "political" in trying to examine what I perceived to be a Hanslar> political bias. The suggestion of political arguments made Hanslar> me rethink an assumption on my part, however. I'd like to Hanslar> suggest a different line of examination regarding the basic Hanslar> user interface that might once and for all preserve user Hanslar> access to the OS, if I could get some feedback from "those Hanslar> who know" about some specifics of this and that technology, Hanslar> since I think I may have a novel solution to the Hanslar> accessibility problem. Hanslar> Instead of asking "what other non-proprietary solution Hanslar> offers as flexible solution to user access as emacs" I Hanslar> should have asked "how can we give Linux low-level support Hanslar> for a rich, non-proprietary user interface?" The answer Hanslar> that came up when I asked that was not emacs, but XML. If Hanslar> Linux were capable of presenting information in the form of Hanslar> XML structures, it would be a simple matter to plug in, at Hanslar> the shell, desktop, or application level, a web browser Hanslar> interface; the operating system would not have to make Hanslar> assumptions as to the user's mode of access except to deal Hanslar> with the installed hardware in traditional Unix ways. Let Hanslar> me hasten to add that full XML need not (probably should Hanslar> not) be supported, but useful structural markup should be Hanslar> supported. For example, Linux would not send a message Hanslar> tagged as "bold" information, but it could send a message Hanslar> tagged with "emphasis". And Linux need not then concern Hanslar> itself with how the information it is presenting will be Hanslar> rendered for the user, only that it was sent to devices Hanslar> that are supported by default or user-chosen utilities to Hanslar> render it appropriatedly. The tricky part is to define what Hanslar> subset of XML tagging is *necessary* for OS-user Hanslar> interactions and what tag handling Hanslar> (recognition/stripping/ignoring) Linux will perform on Hanslar> input from the user. And, if necessary and appropriate, Hanslar> defining new tags to submit to the W3C to support open Hanslar> systems accessibility at the lowest level. Getting an Hanslar> English voice message output to a sound card, for example, Hanslar> would not be difficult, but getting a vocal response Hanslar> returned to Linux and recognized as a choice or command is Hanslar> a tougher problem that might best be handled by making the Hanslar> user's shell, desktop, or browser smart enough to process Hanslar> the signal into the needed data for Linux to use. Hanslar> Does this seem viable without significantly distorting the Hanslar> kernel? Hanslar> -lar "The sum of all we drive at is that every man may Hanslar> enjoy the same rights that are granted to others." -- John Hanslar> Locke, 1689, A Letter Concerning Toleration Hanslar> -- To unsubscribe: mail blinux-develop-request@xxxxxxxxxx Hanslar> with "unsubscribe" as the Subject. -- --------------- Brian L. Sellden - brian@xxxxxxxxx, http://www.henge.com/~brian Just another hack at Gateway User of Emacspeak 8.0, making Unix talk. What on earth would a man do with himself if something did not stand in his way? -- H.G. Wells