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

Al and all,

I have responsed inline to your responses.  Please let us know within two 
weeks whether you agree/disagree with our course of action.

Steve Speicher
On behalf of the CDF WG

Al Gilman <> wrote on 02/11/2007 08:49:06 PM:

> At 8:53 AM -0500 11 02 2007, Steve K Speicher wrote:

> 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
> Thanks.
> > 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 
> 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. 
> is in our requirements for our second work package to address processing
> rules for handling of unknown content when host language doesn't have 
>  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. 
> 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 
> 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 
> stylesheets configured in the Browser to CDR sub-documents?

Nothing specific to User stylesheets.  We do plan to test parent-to-child 
and child-to-parent DOM access, which should generically cover having the 
content author directly control which CSS properties get propagated.  We 
will not test user-defined stylesheets as we don't have a conformance 
statement for it.  We have conformance statements for prerequiste CSS, 
which their testsuite should cover.  No change is planned as a response to 
this comment.

> > 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 
> 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 
> 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 
> > conforming to CDR shall define how focus traversal is handled, and how
> the
> > 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
> used.
> [1]
> [2]
> It will be worth-while to walk through the treatment of navigation in 
> more detail tomorrow on the call.

Since your original comment had to do with a "glossary" item and not 
navigation algorithms and accessibility, I assume that you agree with my 
response to the framework comment.  We plan to make no changes in response 
to this comment.

Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 15:39:55 UTC