W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > March 2006

Re: Comments on "WICD Full/Mobile 1.0"

From: Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:04:28 -0500
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0DC86670.46082E2E-ON8525712B.00076C14-8525712B.000B1F51@us.ibm.com>
Bjoern,

Please find the responses below marked with [KEK], 

Please let us know, within 2 weeks, if this change does not address your
comment.

Kevin
On behalf of the CDF WG




Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> 
Sent by: public-cdf-request@w3.org
12/19/2005 11:01 PM

To
public-cdf@w3.org
cc

Subject
Comments on "WICD Full/Mobile 1.0"







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.

[KEK]  This line has been added to both profiles
          "For accessibility, conforming WICD 1.0 user agents should 
profile the
          option of switching off audio. [UAAG]."

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

[KEK] This line has been added to both profiles
          "For accessibility, conforming WICD 1.0 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.

[KEK]  Since we strive not to change existing markups but rather combine 
them as they exist (XHTML and SVG on this case) , this comment would be 
best redirected to the SVG and XHTML WGs rather.  No changes have been 
made with repect to this comment.

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.

[KEK] The profiles currently states:

        "No audio format is mandated in this profile.

          [assert-audio-formats: 
            Any audio format supported by the device must also be 
supported 
            to be used with the <audio> element in SVG and <object> 
element in XHTML. 
          ]"

[KEK]  This allows any audio formats supported by the device through the 
named tags in the combined markup. No changes have been made with repect 
to this comment. 

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.

[KEK] Can you elaborate on why this does not make sense to you with a 
specific technical issue or problem this conformance requirement makes? No 
changes have been made with repect to this comment. 

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

[KEK]  The Mobile profile references ECMA-327 in its appendix, the Full 
profile references ECMA-262. No changes have been made with repect to this 
comment. 

"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.

[KEK]  Some context for the target of this profile is included to clarify 
the intent  and target of the profile.  No changes have been made with 
repect to this comment. 

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.

[KEK] No changes have been made with repect to this comment. 

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 Wednesday, 8 March 2006 02:01:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:21 UTC