W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-indie-ui@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Proposed Set of Needs/Preferences for v1

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:02:37 -0800
Cc: Indie UI <public-indie-ui@w3.org>, Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>
Message-id: <3B22FCDA-0317-483A-A060-55D86AC5E465@apple.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote on 02/20/2013 01:54:25 PM:
> 
>> If you prefer, I can add the following as an informative code example. 
>> 
>> // example of preferences that are defined by third-party taxonomies.
>> window.preferences.valueForKey('prefersTranscript', 'nsdl'); // "National Science Digital Library"
>> window.preferences.valueForKey('prefersSimplifiedInterface', 'gpii'); // "Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure"
> 
> No. I am not supportive of that approach as it what you are saying is that the things that apple wants don't require namespaces but the things that the working group wants get ghettod into a namespace and you end up not really supporting it. That is is wrong as that is NOT interoperability.  

You repeatedly state I've said or implied things I haven't. I'd appreciate it if you'd conduct your mailing discussion in a matter befitting a working group representative.

> At the last meeting the other members wanted these other features and not just the OS settings. Second, at the face face it was asked that we have a small set vs. a large GPII set. We have done that. 
> 
> Also, if Andi's action item was to get these other preferences and you want to ghetto them into a namespace there was not purpose to that exercise. 

I didn't object to all of the preferences mentioned, just the ones that were not, in my view, implementable.

> Finally, just because these features are not in the browser today really does not matter as if you look at the schedule there is more than ample time to get them in and we can get implementations in that time frame.  

Except that W3C working groups only specify web features handled by rendering engines. The proposed preferences in question would require new UI in an operating system or browser (outside the rendering engine) and is therefore out-of-scope for the working group to dictate.

> show a settings panel, for say Safari, and let the user select the preferences. They do not need to got to a systems settings panel or a control panel in windows where settings apply to the entire OS. 

Requiring new UI in a browser settings panel is outside the scope of the W3C, and would most likely ensure this spec would die on the operating table. Leave it open, perhaps as a browser extension, in 1.0, and we can work with that.

Try to remember that we're after the same goals.

>> What browser has a preference for this? That would change things.
> 
> They don't today. That's why we have a working group.

The working group charter does not include the ability to specify UI features outside of the rendering engine.

> Heck, when we started ARIA there was NO browser support and in fact there were even gaps in each platforms accessibility API. We filled them. 

ARIA is a rendering engine feature that requires no additional settings UI. 
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 22:02:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 February 2013 22:02:59 GMT