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

Fw: ACTION-335: Fw: Comments on "WICD Full/Mobile 1.0"

From: Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:06:45 -0400
To: public-cdf@w3.org, derhoermi@gmx.net
Cc: member-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE378A023.CC8B381C-ON85257162.0068A6B6-85257162.0068B09E@us.ibm.com>

Thanks for the comments, please see responses below <cdfwg>. 


On behalf of the CDF WG 
If this does not address your comment please respond within 2 weeks. 

----- Forwarded by Kevin E Kelly/Raleigh/IBM on 04/18/2006 09:10 AM ----- 
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> 
Sent by: public-cdf-request@w3.org 
12/19/2005 11:01 PM 


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

 * 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"

<cdfwg>  There are some differences in the support required between the 
Full and Mobile profiles so these sections will remain in the separate 
profile documents. 


<cdfwg>  No changes were made in response to this comment. 

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.
<cdfwg>  The CDF WG attempts to use markup "as-is".  Comments about 
bitmaps by XHMTL and SVG shoudl be directed to responsible Working Groups.


<cdfwg>  No changes were made in response 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

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

<cdfwg> WICD Mobile section 3.6 Audio Formats states: 

          "No audio format is mandated in this profile. 

           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." 


<cdfwg> and 

<cdfwg> WICD Mobile 1.0 User Agent Conformance requirement 4 states: 

            "Conformant WICD Mobile 1.0 user agents must support 
            ECMAScript 3rd Edition Compact Profile (ES-CP) 
            as a scripting language." 


<cdfwg> The sum of these two sections does allow you to use any audio 
format you 
like supported by XHTML and SVG(T) or none, and mandates support for 
as the scritping language. 

<cdfwg> No changes were made in response 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.

<cdfwg> The CDF WG sees value in media queries for WICD.  For example 
media queries 
will allow you to provide 2 presentations for different aspect ratios. 
They can also be used to 
add aspect ratio, color, pixels or text, width and height, etc.. 

<cdfwg> No changes were made in response to this comment. 

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

See entry for 2006-02-21 

<cdfwg> This change has been made in response 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.

<cdfwg> The CDF WG belives there is value in providing specific guidance 
for WICD documents.  From a product manufacturers point of view, it is 
valuable having such profiles defined.  It reduces the overall cost of the 

product and improves its quality.  This comes from the fact that fewer 
of the software loads on the devices are needed, and fewer variants means 
simplified manufacturing process and more testing on the fewer number of
software loads.

<cdfwg> This changes has been made in response 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

<cdfwg>  There are some differences in the support required between the 
Full and Mobile profiles so these sections will remain in the separate 
profile documents. 

<cdfwg>  No changes were made in response to this comment. 

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, 2 May 2006 19:04:00 UTC

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