W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Definition of website

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:41:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4E8A2C25.1070702@msu.edu>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>
Hi Shadi--

Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to Denis' definition which 
referenced HTML and XHTML.

Best regards,

Mike

On 10/3/2011 11:08 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi Mike, Leonie,
>
> Where do you see the proposed definition of website be limited to HTML?
>
> The currently proposed definition for "website" is:
>
> [[
> A coherent collection of one or more related web pages that together 
> provide common use or functionality. It includes static web pages, 
> dynamically generated web pages, and web applications.
> ]]
>
> The definition for "web page" (from WCAG2 [1]) is:
>
> [[
> a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any 
> other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be 
> rendered together with it by a user agent
> ]]
>
> I understand that this includes any technology such as Flash, PDF, and 
> Silverlight as long as they are delivered through HTTP (which includes 
> HTTPS) and are intended to be rendered by a user agent (as opposed to 
> other uses of these technologies).
>
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef>
>
> Best,
>   Shadi
>
>
> On 3.10.2011 16:23, Michael S Elledge wrote:
>> I am also concerned that we not exclude non-html technologies. I
>> understand the need to restrict the delivery of a website to a user
>> agent (otherwise it could also include "software" which is defined
>> separately by W3C), but there is enough content being delivered that is
>> not based on html that we should be sure to include it in our 
>> definition.
>>
>> I think this would also be compatible with WCAG 2.0's
>> "technology-agnostic" approach.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>> That seems to be a more technically specific description Denis.
>>
>> I wonder whether we need to extend either description to reference page
>> assets as well though?
>>
>> Flash/PDF/Silverlight/whatever entities for example?
>>>
>>> Léonie.
>> On 10/3/2011 12:59 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>> Hi Denis,
>>>
>>> Short: what is it that you are trying to fix? ;)
>>>
>>> Long: please explain what issues you see with the current proposal and
>>> some of the rationale for your suggestion. In particular, I'm not sure
>>> what is meant by an "organized" vs "un-organized" set of related pages
>>> and why you want to restrict a website to something being on a single
>>> "web server". Also, the "HTTP protocol" and "accessed by a user agent"
>>> aspects are already in the WCAG2 definition of a web page so I think
>>> there is no need to repeat that in the definition of "website".
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Shadi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3.10.2011 06:24, Denis Boudreau wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Having looked at the current I'd like to propose, if I may, another
>>>> definition for what a "website" is.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, we have: "A coherent collection of one or more related web
>>>> pages that together provide common use or functionality. It includes
>>>> static web pages, dynamically generated web pages, and web
>>>> applications".
>>>>
>>>> I think something along the lines of the following would cover more
>>>> ground and circumscribe more efficiently what we mean by "website":
>>>>
>>>> "An organized set of related web pages using HTML or XHTML, linked in
>>>> a coherent structure, hosted on a Web server, accessed by a user
>>>> agent and governed by the HTTP or the HTTPS protocol".
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> /Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 21:42:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT