W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > December 2005

Comments on "WICD Full/Mobile 1.0"

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:01:40 +0100
To: public-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <qiueq1l3oq1bfce47lfgiub8q9u0t49onc@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

Dear Compound Document Formats Working Group,

  I've looked at http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICDFull-20051219/ and
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICDMobile-20051219/ and I think the
requirements

  * For accessibility, conforming user agents should profile the
    option of switching off audio.

  * For accessibility, conforming user agents must provide the
    option of pausing, rewinding, or stopping video. 

to the extend that they make sense should be moved to "WICD Core 1.0"
and the requirements for JFIF, JPEG, PNG support should be spelled out
by changing "WICD Core 1.0" such that any supported bitmap format must
be supported from both XHTML and SVG content; support for the formats
would then be required through requirements in SVG.

Both documents can then be reduced to plain lists (as opposed to the
current line and section noise with confusing inline requirements and a
weird conformance section) of what must be supported by compliant user
agents.

The requirements for content do not make much sense to me; frankly, what
should it say? That you can use any audio format you like, but if you
use script it must be ECMA-262 compliant? That would not make much
sense.

There are some related problems here, for example, "WICD Full 1.0"
notes "A conforming style language is CSS" and that implementations
must support that, the specification then also says CSS 2.1 is re-
quired, and "WICD Core 1.0" requires CSS Media Queries support; I do
not really think it would make sense to define a CSS 2.1 + CSS3MQ
CSS profile specifically for "WICD Full 1.0" conformance.

"WICD Mobile 1.0" is confused about whether ECMA-262 or ECMA-327 must
be supported. 

"WICD Mobile 1.0" 3.3.1 clarifies the semantics of the 'handheld' media
type, I do not think this is "CDR"-specific in any way, this text should
be moved to the specifications that define the semantics of this type.

I don't think the resulting documents really merit separate technical
reports, and I am not really convinced there is much value in having
special terms for user agents that implement the specified set of
features.

regards,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 04:01:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:40 GMT