Re: Definition of website

Hi Mike, Leonie,

Where do you see the proposed definition of website be limited to HTML?

The currently proposed definition for "website" is:

[[
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.
]]

The definition for "web page" (from WCAG2 [1]) is:

[[
a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI using HTTP plus any 
other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be 
rendered together with it by a user agent
]]

I understand that this includes any technology such as Flash, PDF, and 
Silverlight as long as they are delivered through HTTP (which includes 
HTTPS) and are intended to be rendered by a user agent (as opposed to 
other uses of these technologies).

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef>

Best,
   Shadi


On 3.10.2011 16:23, Michael S Elledge wrote:
> I am also concerned that we not exclude non-html technologies. I
> understand the need to restrict the delivery of a website to a user
> agent (otherwise it could also include "software" which is defined
> separately by W3C), but there is enough content being delivered that is
> not based on html that we should be sure to include it in our definition.
>
> I think this would also be compatible with WCAG 2.0's
> "technology-agnostic" approach.
>
> Mike
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 15:09:14 UTC