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

RE: Definition of website

From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:25:55 +0100
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4219A0ECCAE794C9ED7DC6F5A4C0CD537B384AB60@jupiter.intranet.nomensa.com>
	That description of a web page is fine. Suggest we link through to it from the description in our methodology though. I wasn't aware of that description of a web page and suspect many others will not be when they come to our methodology either.


Nomensa - humanising technology

Léonie Watson, Director of Accessibility & Web Development

tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333
twitter: @we_are_Nomensa @LeonieWatson
-----Original Message-----
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
Sent: 03 October 2011 16:09
To: Michael S Elledge
Cc: Eval TF; Léonie Watson
Subject: Re: Definition of website

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>


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

Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 08:29:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:18 UTC