- From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:16:24 -0400
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
I am also concerned that we inclu other technologies not based on html. > That seems to be a more technically specific description Denis. I wonder whether we need to extend either description to reference page assets as well though? Flash/PDF/Silverlight/whatever entities for example? > > Léonie. On 10/3/2011 12:59 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: > Hi Denis, > > Short: what is it that you are trying to fix? ;) > > Long: please explain what issues you see with the current proposal and > some of the rationale for your suggestion. In particular, I'm not sure > what is meant by an "organized" vs "un-organized" set of related pages > and why you want to restrict a website to something being on a single > "web server". Also, the "HTTP protocol" and "accessed by a user agent" > aspects are already in the WCAG2 definition of a web page so I think > there is no need to repeat that in the definition of "website". > > Best, > Shadi > > > On 3.10.2011 06:24, Denis Boudreau wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Having looked at the current I'd like to propose, if I may, another >> definition for what a "website" is. >> >> Right now, we have: "A coherent collection of one or more related web >> pages that together provide common use or functionality. It includes >> static web pages, dynamically generated web pages, and web >> applications". >> >> I think something along the lines of the following would cover more >> ground and circumscribe more efficiently what we mean by "website": >> >> "An organized set of related web pages using HTML or XHTML, linked in >> a coherent structure, hosted on a Web server, accessed by a user >> agent and governed by the HTTP or the HTTPS protocol". >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> /Denis >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 14:17:06 UTC