- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:01:40 +0100
- To: public-cdf@w3.org
Dear Compound Document Formats Working Group, I've looked at http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICDFull-20051219/ and http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICDMobile-20051219/ and I think the requirements * For accessibility, conforming user agents should profile the option of switching off audio. * For accessibility, conforming user agents must provide the option of pausing, rewinding, or stopping video. to the extend that they make sense should be moved to "WICD Core 1.0" and the requirements for JFIF, JPEG, PNG support should be spelled out by changing "WICD Core 1.0" such that any supported bitmap format must be supported from both XHTML and SVG content; support for the formats would then be required through requirements in SVG. Both documents can then be reduced to plain lists (as opposed to the current line and section noise with confusing inline requirements and a weird conformance section) of what must be supported by compliant user agents. The requirements for content do not make much sense to me; frankly, what should it say? That you can use any audio format you like, but if you use script it must be ECMA-262 compliant? That would not make much sense. There are some related problems here, for example, "WICD Full 1.0" notes "A conforming style language is CSS" and that implementations must support that, the specification then also says CSS 2.1 is re- quired, and "WICD Core 1.0" requires CSS Media Queries support; I do not really think it would make sense to define a CSS 2.1 + CSS3MQ CSS profile specifically for "WICD Full 1.0" conformance. "WICD Mobile 1.0" is confused about whether ECMA-262 or ECMA-327 must be supported. "WICD Mobile 1.0" 3.3.1 clarifies the semantics of the 'handheld' media type, I do not think this is "CDR"-specific in any way, this text should be moved to the specifications that define the semantics of this type. I don't think the resulting documents really merit separate technical reports, and I am not really convinced there is much value in having special terms for user agents that implement the specified set of features. regards, -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 04:01:42 UTC