- From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:39:21 +0200
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
Target: section 3.3 of HDP Change: modify title, remove "when possible" (same as should?), add a sentence and cleanup examples for section's content Type of change: a) clarify the intention of media, device and platform independence: editorial change b) add a rule for feature's requirement level ("must be optional"), this could be perceived as substantial change. Reason: the inclusion of the to-be-supported media types in the HTML5 spec is taken as the justification for the change. There has been the discussion about the media types that should be included in the spec e.g. [1], [2]. As an example I supplied a comment [3] related to the support of PCM in various environments - e.g. in mobile environment PCM is not intended to be supported due to the file size. Similarly [4] presents the related viewpoint from SYMM WG. (BTW: A consensus about PCM inclusion seems not to have been reached yet.) Added sentence: "On the other hand if it is known that some feature cannot be supported in some environment targeted by the specification, the feature must correspondingly be marked as optional." ********* IS BEGIN ********* 3.3. Media Independence Features should, when possible, work across different platforms, devices, and media. This should not be taken to mean that a feature should be omitted just because some media or platforms can't support it. For example, interactive features should not be omitted merely because they can not be represented in a printed document. The general reflowability of HTML text makes it more suitable to variable screen dimensions than a representation of exact glyph positions. A hyperlink can not be actuated in a printed document, but that is no reason to omit the a element. ********* IS END ********* ********* PROPOSAL BEGIN ********* 3.3. Media, Device and Platform Independence Features should work across different platforms, devices, and media. This should not be taken to mean that a feature should be omitted just because some media or platforms can't support it. On the other hand if it is known that some feature cannot be supported in some environment targeted by the specification, the feature must correspondingly be marked as optional. Interactive features should not be omitted merely because they can not be represented in a printed document. The general reflowability of HTML text makes it more suitable to variable screen dimensions than a representation of exact glyph positions. A hyperlink can not be actuated in a printed document, but that is no reason to omit the a element. ********* PROPOSAL END ********* [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0302.html [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0411.html [3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/1191.html [4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007JulSep/0028.html Marcin
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 10:39:30 UTC