W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2001

Responses to Sun issues raised during third last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:45:03 -0400
Message-ID: <3B446F5F.11BB89B4@w3.org>
To: Earl.Johnson@sun.com
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Earl,

The User Agent Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) has almost
finished resolving the issues raised during the third last call
review of the 9 April 2001 UAAG 1.0 [1]. 

This is the UAWG's formal response to the issue you raised on
behalf of Sun, which has been logged in the Working Group's issues 
list [4].  The UAWG's resolution and other editorial suggestions 
have been incorporated into the 22 June 2001 draft of the UAAG 1.0 [5].

Please indicate before 19 July whether you are satisfied with the
UAWG's resolution, whether you think there has been a
misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
If you do not think you can respond before 19 July, please let me
know.  The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
with the resolution or not.

Below you will find:

 1) More information follows about the process we are following.
 2) A summary of the UAWG's response to your issue.

Thank you,

 _ Ian

-----------------------------------------------
1) Process requirement to address last call issues
-----------------------------------------------

Per section 5.2.3 [2] of the 8 February 2001 Process Document, in
order for the UAAG 1.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
Document [3] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal
response:

  "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
  addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
  of having sent a response to the party who raised the
  issue. This response should include the Working Group's
  resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
  reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
  initial objection."

If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
Working Group may prepare its substantive response.

If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
with the relevant deliverables. There are currently two
objections that the UAWG will carry forward with the document in
a request to advance to Candidate Recommendation. Each concerns
the priority of checkpoint 12.1, one that the priority should be
lowered, the other that the priority should be raised. There are
additional supporters of each position.

  Phill Jenkins:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0528
    
  Gregory Rosmaita:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0553

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#RecsCR
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/groups.html#WGVotes
[4] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010622/

-----------------------------------------------
2) Issue you raised and responses
-----------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 511: What is definition of applet? 
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#511
------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: The UAWG has adopted the following definition (adapted
from the definition you proposed):

  "An applet is a program (generally written in the Java programming
  language) that is part of content, and that the user agent
  executes."

---------------
For other responses to comments you raised, please refer to these
responses:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0150

And your followup:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0177

And my followup:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0181


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:47:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:57 GMT