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

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

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 19:45:37 +0200
To: Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <i0bk52dpak2fsvda5e2esb1t17e5o8bj64@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Kevin E Kelly wrote:
>[...]

I did not see a response from the Working Group to my earlier message

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Mar/0047

and it is still unclear to me whether

  * the Working Group formally addressed all comments before publishing
    the four last call announcements

  * where I can read up on why the Working Group has not been able to
    meet W3C's requirements for regular publication of updated drafts

  * the Working Group intends to publish another set of Last Call
    drafts to confirm the many changes the group apparently made
    with the public and other interested parties.

Was there a response or other message that I've missed?

> 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"
>
><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> 
>http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-mobile.xhtml#doc-audio 
><cdfwg> 
>http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-full.xhtml#doc-audio 
>
><cdfwg>  No changes were made in response to this comment. 

The requirements are identical as far as I can tell, and this is not the
only requirement that's stated only in "WICD Core 1.0" and not restated
in the profiles, so it is entirely unclear to me why the Working Group
rejected my request. Please cite technically sound rationale for the de-
cision of the Working Group.

>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 
>supported 
>bitmaps by XHMTL and SVG shoudl be directed to responsible Working Groups.
>
><cdfwg> 
>http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-mobile.xhtml#doc-bitmap 
><cdfwg> 
>http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-full.xhtml#doc-spec-bitmap 
>
><cdfwg>  No changes were made in response to this comment. 

My request is concerned with the organization of requirements in the
documents produced by the CDF Working Group; please respond to the
comment I've made or ask for clarification on parts of my request that
are unclear. I also note that the requirements to support certain types
of image formats come from the SVG and CDF drafts, not the XHTML specs,
so it is entirely unclear to me what to make of this response.

>[various comments on the conformance and related sections]
>
><cdfwg> No changes were made in response to this comment. 

It is not clear to me why the Working Group thinks no changes have been
made, even though it seems clear from both your response and the drafts
you've pointed out that substantive changes have been made. At a first
sight, these sections appear to be in a slightly better shape; I will
review them again once the Working Group published updated drafts.

>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. 

It remains entirely unclear to me whether implementation of CSS Level 3
Media Queries is required in either the Mobile or Full profile or both;
In the drafts you point out,

  * Mobile requires "the updated version of CSS Mobile Profile 1.0"
  * Full requires "Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 revision 1"

Media queries are mentioned only in the references section, which is
meaningless and incorrect without a reference in the document. As I
pointed out, "WICD Core" does mention this, and support for "Core" is
required in the profiles, "WICD Core" also requires e.g.

  "WICD user agents must support content layering using CSS absolute
  positioning in x, y and z order."

even though the CSS Mobile Profile 1.0 does not require support for
position and z-index properties, so it is entirely unclear what level
of CSS support is actually required. Again, the level of CSS support
required in the Full and Mobile profiles is unclear to me, I am well
aware of the CSS Media Queries feature set.

>"WICD Mobile 1.0" is confused about whether ECMA-262 or ECMA-327 must
>be supported. 
>
><cdfwg> 
>http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd-mobile.xhtml#changes-log 
>See entry for 2006-02-21 
>
><cdfwg> This change has been made in response to this comment. 

This is acceptable to me.

>"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 
>very 
>valuable having such profiles defined.  It reduces the overall cost of the 
>
>product and improves its quality.  This comes from the fact that fewer 
>variants 
>of the software loads on the devices are needed, and fewer variants means 
>a
>simplified manufacturing process and more testing on the fewer number of
>software loads.
>
><cdfwg> This changes has been made in response to this comment. 

You did not list or otherwise discuss changes that have been made in
response to my comment. My request was not concerned with the utility
of the text, but where it occurs. It seems the text is no longer in-
cluded in the document I reviewed, but in "WICD Core". It is unclear
to me how the text is specific to "WICD", please cite rationale why
the text should be in "WICD Mobile" or "WICD Core" rather than where
the media type is defined.
-- 
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 Thursday, 4 May 2006 17:46:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:41 GMT