Re: PF group comments on WICD and CDR last call working drafts

At 8:53 AM -0500 11 02 2007, Steve K Speicher wrote:
>Al and PFWG,
>I took the action to respond to your comments regarding only the Compound
>Document by Reference Framework 1.0, I'll address those below.
>Let us know within two weeks if these do no address your issues.
>Steve Speicher
>On behalf of the CDF WG
>Al Gilman <> wrote on 01/19/2007 01:58:18 PM:
>>  Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0
>>  Section 1.2
>>  Related Documents: It would be nice to add "Web Integration
>>  Compound Document" at least once when using the acronym "WICD".
>Change made


>>  Section 1.3
>>  Have an example of an alternative to the MathML and how the user
>>  would be choose between alternatives
>It is unclear what you meant by alternatives?  We're assuming this comment
>was intended to address the issue when a User Agent doesn't have a
>supported mechanism for processing MathML markup.  Since this first work
>package only deals with compound documents by reference, we rely on the
>fallback mechanisms provided by the host language, in this case XHTML.  It
>is in our requirements for our second work package to address processing
>rules for handling of unknown content when host language doesn't have one.
>  Note too that this section is intended to be informative on compound
>documents in general to give some background.
>>  Section 2.1
>>  Document Object Model.  Quote: "CSS property inheritance is
>>  inhibited at inclusion boundaries."  Could this be an accessibility
>>  problem when users have their user-defined CSS?
>This statement is just documenting how this is implemented in today.  *This
>does not affect user-defined CSS.* [emplasis added]  It is possible 
>for content to be
>developed that can copy these properties utilizing the child-to-parent DOM
>access that has been outlined in this draft.

See also the response from Anne at

I suppose that the question here is "does it work?"

That is properly a CR question, not necessarily a Last Call Question.

Is there anything in the planned test suite to test the application of User
stylesheets configured in the Browser to CDR sub-documents?

>  > Add Section
>>  Describe keyboard navigation between compound documents by inclusion
>>  or reference and the ability to give interactive elements keyboard
>>  focus through ARIA techniques.
>The CDR Framework document is intended to handle basic framework issues,
>while WICD Core and the other specifications address user interaction and
>navigation models.  We do not address CDI in these drafts, as this is
>intended to be addressed in our next work package.  No change will be made
>to the framework document for this comment.  The similar comment and
>response [1] made for WICD Core will address this in a WICD context.
>>  Definitions.
>>  "Focus traversal" is a defined term, but nothing
>>  in the document addresses this topic.  CDR should state that any profile
>>  conforming to CDR shall define how focus traversal is handled, and how
>>  authors of parent and child documents can define navigation schemes.
>Instead of repeating the same definitions between documents, the WG
>decided to put all CDF definitions into the CDRF and reference to this
>section.  So the WICD Core section 6.3 Focus Navigation [1] uses this
>term.  WICD core defines focus navigation profile requirements.  As you
>see with WICD mobile profile, it defines the focus navigation schemes

It will be worth-while to walk through the treatment of navigation in some
more detail tomorrow on the call.


Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 01:49:29 UTC