W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > February 2007

Re: PF group comments on WICD and CDR last call working drafts

From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:53:56 -0500
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2A31F0B9.3AAD0CFF-ON85257276.005A980C-8525727F.004C2FB4@us.ibm.com>

Al and PFWG,

I took the action to respond to your comments regarding only the Compound 
Document by Reference Framework 1.0, I'll address those below.

Let us know within two weeks if these do no address your issues.

Regards,
Steve Speicher
On behalf of the CDF WG

Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> wrote on 01/19/2007 01:58:18 PM:

> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-CDR-20061122/
> Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0
> 
> Section 1.2
> Related Documents: It would be nice to add "Web Integration
> Compound Document" at least once when using the acronym "WICD".

Change made

> Section 1.3
> Have an example of an alternative to the MathML and how the user 
> would be choose between alternatives

It is unclear what you meant by alternatives?  We're assuming this comment 
was intended to address the issue when a User Agent doesn't have a 
supported mechanism for processing MathML markup.  Since this first work 
package only deals with compound documents by reference, we rely on the 
fallback mechanisms provided by the host language, in this case XHTML.  It 
is in our requirements for our second work package to address processing 
rules for handling of unknown content when host language doesn't have one. 
 Note too that this section is intended to be informative on compound 
documents in general to give some background.

> Section 2.1
> Document Object Model.  Quote: "CSS property inheritance is
> inhibited at inclusion boundaries."  Could this be an accessibility 
> problem when users have their user-defined CSS?

This statement is just documenting how this is implemented in today.  This 
does not affect user-defined CSS.  It is possible for content to be 
developed that can copy these properties utilizing the child-to-parent DOM 
access that has been outlined in this draft.

> Add Section
> Describe keyboard navigation between compound documents by inclusion 
> or reference and the ability to give interactive elements keyboard 
> focus through ARIA techniques.

The CDR Framework document is intended to handle basic framework issues, 
while WICD Core and the other specifications address user interaction and 
navigation models.  We do not address CDI in these drafts, as this is 
intended to be addressed in our next work package.  No change will be made 
to the framework document for this comment.  The similar comment and 
response [1] made for WICD Core will address this in a WICD context.

> Definitions.
> "Focus traversal" is a defined term, but nothing
> in the document addresses this topic.  CDR should state that any profile
> conforming to CDR shall define how focus traversal is handled, and how 
the
> authors of parent and child documents can define navigation schemes.

Instead of repeating the same definitions between documents, the WG 
decided to put all CDF definitions into the CDRF and reference to this 
section.  So the WICD Core section 6.3 Focus Navigation [1] uses this 
term.  WICD core defines focus navigation profile requirements.  As you 
see with WICD mobile profile, it defines the focus navigation schemes 
used.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2007Feb/0000.html
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/Group/specs/CDR/wp1/wicd.xml#focus-navigation
Received on Sunday, 11 February 2007 13:52:27 GMT

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