[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