[Accessibility] FSGA Teleconference Agenda, Wednesday 28 June

Olaf Jan Schmidt ojschmidt at kde.org
Wed Jun 28 10:25:29 PDT 2006


I won't be able to attend today, so let me just provide a comment to the 
agenda by email.

[ Bill Haneman ]
> 	* LSB requires validation, so we must relate the
> 	'normative IDL' notion to an actual ABI

Is there a requirement to add AT-SPI to the LSB?

My suggestion is that we publish AT-SPI as a separate standard with different 
validation rules from the LSB. The aim would not be to define an ABI, but to 
ensure that the functionality is there. 

For the LSB, I see basically two options:
a) We postpone all discussion of standardising an ABI until we have an ABI 
that we are all comfortable with. The functional spec will still allow us to 
check wether AT-SPI support is shipped in a distribution. Since the number of 
AT-SPI variants will be limited to two at the most, it does not seem 
necessary to rush defining a frozen ABI.

b) We add cspi to LSB. At the same time we allow distributions to use 
additionally include other interfaces to AT-SPI (and use them in the 
assistive technologies they ship). Once other CORBA-independent AT-SPI 
bindings emerge (e.g. a Python ABI or a QSpi ABI) these are added to the LSB 
as well. Assistive technologies then have the option of using an LSB-approved 
ABI if they wish to, but we still have the option to develop better ABIs.

Since Peter and Bill are most familiar with cspi, they should be able to say 
best which of the two approaches makes more sense.


Olaf Jan Schmidt, KDE Accessibility co-maintainer, open standards 
accessibility networker, Protestant theology student and webmaster of 
http://accessibility.kde.org/ and http://www.amen-online.de/

More information about the Accessibility mailing list