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

Accept.

On 6/17/10 2:28 PM, ext Janina Sajka wrote:
> Dear Art Barstow:
>
> Thank you for your comments on the 15 December 2009 Working Draft of
> Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20091215/). The Protocols and
> Formats Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the draft. We
> would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly and
> whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.
>
> Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us
> by 2 July 2010 to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional
> concerns you have with our response. 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. You can
> respond in the following ways:
>
> * If you have a W3C account, we request that you respond online at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/acknowledge?document_version_id=6;
>
> * Else, by email to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org (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
> resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived
> copy of your original comment on
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/, and may also
> include links to the relevant changes in the Accessible Rich Internet
> Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 editors' draft at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/20100616/.
>
> 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
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews)
> to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org. 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 310: WAI Widget != WebApps Widget
> Date: 2010-01-28
> Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2010JanMar/0037.html
> Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 - 4. Important Terms<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20091215/#terms>
> Status: Proposal not accepted
>
> -------------
> Your comment:
> -------------
> The term "widget" in these docs appears to be undefined but seems to be
> consistent with widget as a UI component (e.g. a UI control embedded in an
> HTML document) ala Google Gadgets. As such, this usage is inconsistent with
> the definition of widget as used in WebApps' widgets specs, namely the
> Widget Packaging and Configuration Candidate [P&C].
>
> --------------------------------
> Response from the Working Group:
> --------------------------------
> Widget is an abstract role in the WAI-ARIA specification and its
> definition, found here (http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#widget) is
> consistent with your interpretation of its use in the WAI-ARIA
> specification. It is also consistent with other uses of widget in widet
> sets (http://www.efalk.org/Widgets/), most notably the Athena Widget Set
> for the X Windows System. It is, however, not consistent with the widget
> application specification where it is defined as a packaging vehicle. The
> term "widget", by definition, is meant to be abstract. We believe both
> definitions (ours and the webapps packaging specification) are consistent
> with the intent of a "widget" and the definition is dependent on the
> context in which is is used.
>
> Consequently, we feel it is acceptable to have a different definition of
> "Widget" that of the Widget Packaging and Configuration specification.
>

Received on Friday, 18 June 2010 11:18:23 UTC