Re: Revised response to your comments on Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:25:38 +0200, Janina Sajka <> wrote:

> Dear Simon Pieters:
> Thank you for acknowledging our response to your comments on the 24
> February 2009 Last Call Working Draft of Accessible Rich Internet
> Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0
> ( Because your
> acknowledgement indicated you were not satisfied with our action and / or
> provided additional useful information, we reopened the comments to see  
> if
> there was further work that could be done related to that comment. We
> enclose an updated response to your comments. In most cases we believe  
> the
> updated response should address the concerns you raised in your
> acknowledgement. In some cases, however, we recognize that you still will
> not accept our disposition. If we do disagree, your comments will be
> reviewed during the transition meeting with the Director when we seek to
> advance the document to the next stage of maturity.
> Please review our updated resolutions for the following comments, and
> reply to us by 2 July 2010 to say whether you now accept them. If we do  
> not
> hear from you by that date, we will mark your comment as "no response"  
> and
> close it. If you need more time to consider your acknowledgement, please
> let us know. Although you acknowledged our response before, because of  
> the
> updated response we need a new acknowledgement from you to record whether
> you now agree or disagree with our updated response. Note that only
> comments that we reopened are included below; any other comments which  
> you
> previously acknowledged are still recorded as you last saw them. You can
> respond in the following ways:
> * If you have a W3C account, we request that you respond online at

"Warning: mysql_num_rows(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result  
resource in /afs/ on line 55
No comments awaiting acknowledgement from you found."

> * Else, by email to (be sure to reference our
> comment ID so we can track your response). Note that this list is  
> publicly
> archived.
> Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
> updated resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the
> archived copy of your original comment on
>, and may also
> include links to the relevant changes in the Accessible Rich Internet
> Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 editors' draft at
> Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue,
> you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to 3.3.2  
> of
> the W3C Process, at
> to Formal objections will be reviewed during
> the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C Director,
> unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in advance of  
> the
> meeting.
> Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot
> always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are
> valuable to the development of Accessible Rich Internet Applications
> (WAI-ARIA) 1.0.
> Regards,
> Janina Sajka, PFWG Chair
> Michael Cooper, PFWG Staff Contact
> Comment 276: Please remove FPI in sample ARIA DTD
> Date: 2009-06-22
> Archived at:  
> Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 -  
> 9.1.3. Sample XHTML plus ARIA DTD  
> <>
> Status: Alternate action taken
> -------------
> Your comment:
> -------------
> <!-- This is the driver file for a sample XHTML + ARIA DTD.
>       Please use this public identifier to identify it:
>           "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA EXAMPLE 1.0//EN"
> -->
> <!ENTITY % XHTML.version  "XHTML+ARIA 1.0" >
> <!-- For example, if you are using XHTML 1.1 directly, use the public
>       identifier in the DOCTYPE declaration, with the namespace
> declaration
>       on the document element to identify the default namespace:
>         <?xml version="1.0"?>
>         <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA 1.0//EN"
> "">
>         <html xmlns=""
>               xml:lang="en">
>         ...
>         </html>
>       Revisions:
>       (none)
> -->
> Please remove the FPI from this sample DTD.
> Why? Because the following sequence of events have happened in the past:
>    1. A W3C WG mints a new XHTML FPI.
>    2. Some authors copy the doctype and use in their pages.
>    3. Some of those authors serve their pages as application/xhtml+xml to
> XHTML browsers.
>    4. Some of those pages have HTML entities like &nbsp; or &copy;.
>    5. Those pages don't work in XHTML browsers.
>    6. Browsers extend their list of magic FPIs that enable the HTML
> entities in XML.
> It is painful, unnecessary and wastes time for authors and browser
> implementors.
> The spec also says "To avoid competition with future formal XHTML DTDs
> that support ARIA, this is only a sample and has not been posted to a
> referenceable location." although it seems to be referencable from
> --------------------------------
> Response from the Working Group:
> --------------------------------
> == Response to the concerns raised in your acknowledgement ==
> We decided not to make the change you requested, because some people saw
> value in the sample information in the DTD. We will add information about
> appropriate use to the schemata page  
> per our action 591

It seems you have misunderstood my comment. I didn't object to the  
existence of the DTD, or its location, which seems to be what your  
responses are focusing on. I asked for the *FPI* to be removed.

I formally object to including the strings "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA EXAMPLE  
1.0//EN" and "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA 1.0//EN" in and . The rationale is in my  
original comment (quoted above). To remove my objection, change the  
following lines:

      Please use this public identifier to identify it:

          "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA EXAMPLE 1.0//EN" something along the following (alternatively remove it altogether):

      There's no public identifier to identify it.

...and change the following lines:

        <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA 1.0//EN"

        <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM  

(Unrelated comment: maybe you should make the system identifier  
"" instead of  
"" in the DTD located at ?)

> == Original Response ==
> we will move the DTD out of the spec and re-publish it in an alternate
> location ( Although it won't be a
> formal part of the spec anymore, it will be more appropriate to be  
> treated
> as a formal resource. Therefore, we will remove the "for position only"
> marker when we do this.

Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 19:02:58 UTC