Re: CDR Framework: Last Call Comments

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote on 02/21/2006 01:49:55 PM:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Steve K Speicher wrote:
> >
> > Due to the nature of constrained devices within the mobile industry, 
> > many vendors have coordinated such subset profiles and therefore will 
> > depend on CDF profiles to provide interoperable rich content to such 
> > devices.
> 
> ...which has nothing to do with the Web (since such devices wouldn't 
> interoperate with existing Web content) and therefore shouldn't be in 
> scope of the W3C.
> 
> This does not satisfy my concerns. I fear that CDF is encouraging, or 
> justifying, a "split Web" situation with multiple profiles, which is 
> directly counter to the device-independent design of the Web and of 
W3C's 
> design principles.

In the case of our WICD profiles: mobile and full, full is a super-set
of mobile.  If full content were provided to a mobile profile only
capable device, then the mobile device would rely on user agent
conformance for handling unknown content.  Given that this fallback
behaviour would be XHTML fallback behaviour - "If a user agent
encounters an element it does not recognize, it must process the
element's content"[1] - we expect that much (though admitedly, not
all) full XHTML 1.0 content will be usable (though not perfectly
rendered, of course) by a typical end user.

 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#uaconf

We do not plan on making any updates to this section but plan on 
clarifying UA conformance criteria regarding profiled DOM specs.

> > > * 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#child-to-parent-dom-access
> > > 
> > > The ReferencedDocument interface requires that implementations 
perform 
> > > security checks at the element level. Historically, implementations 
> > > have only needed to perform checks at the Document/Window boundary. 
> > > Changing this will introduce a very high potential for security 
bugs.
> > > 
> > > Please do not introduce the ReferencedDocument interface.
> > > 
> > > Instead, the Window.parent member can be used in existing UAs to get 

> > > to the parent Window context.
> > > 
> > > Please coordinate with the new Web APIs group in creating 
> > > specifications for the Window interface.
> > 
>
> This does not satisfy my request.

We have coordinated with the WebAPIs WG to reference their forthcoming 
"Window Object" specification for parent-to-child and child-to-parent 
cross-document access.  We are still working on resolving the 
SecurityException, as the WebAPI WG hasn't closed on that.

> > > * http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#event-propagation
> > > 
> > > Please define what "events targetted at the document shall propagate 

> > > to the parent document" means, in particular in terms of the DOM3 
> > > Events capture phase.
 
We have decided to drop the specification of cross-document event 
propagation, instead we'll provide a description of how existing 
techniques can be used (dynamically adding listeners/handlers to 
propagate, etc.).

> > > * 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/#event-related-legacy-markup
> > > 
> > > "what phases it supports" implies that some events may support less 
> > > than all the phases. This is incorrect.
> > > 
> > > Please remove the mention of "what phases it supports".
> >
> > It is possible to not participate in bubble phase Though the text will 

> > be updated from: "what phases it supports (capture, target, bubble)" 
to 
> > "whether it supports the bubble phase"
> 
> "Supports" is not the right word here, since any event type can be 
> dispatched with or without bubbling. The correct terminology would be 
> "whether it bubbles", or some such.
> 
> (Of course that entire section is redundant, since any spec must define 
> all these details regardless of the CDF spec.)

We'll change to more appropriate wording, such as "whether it bubbles"

Please let us know within two weeks if this reply doesn't satisfy your 
comments.

Regards,
Steve Speicher on behalf of the CDF WG

Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 13:38:36 UTC