Re: Belated last call comments from HTML WG

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> Our apologies for not making the deadline.

Thanks for sending them in, Steven. I'll send more comments later.

[snip]
 
> --
> - if you are going to normatively reference RFC 2119, the words
> "should", "may", and "must" MUST be uppercase

RFC 2119  [1] says:
 
  "These words are often capitalized."

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

[snip]

> General impression:
> This document is in general too vague in the requirements for the different
> user agents (browser, plug-ins, accessibility application, content
> provider). In addition, there is no clear indication as which  "user agent"
> is responsibility for satisfying each requirement. In reading sections 1 &
> 2, it is extremely confusing as to which "agent" is responsible for what
> action/behavior. It would be of great benefit, and would aid in clear
> definition of responsibility, if the authors would differentiate by:
> 
> * content provider
> * operating system
> * browser
> * plug-ins
> * accessibility application

This will become clear when you read section 3 (which from comments
further
on it doesn't look like you've read yet). The answer is:

1) All requirements must be satisfied (subject to applicability)
2) It doesn't matter which component of a claim satisfies the different
requirements;
   conformance is for the subject of the claim as a whole.

Therefore, we have no need to distinguish between operating system,
browser, plug-ins,
or anything else - all you need to know is that the components in the
conformance claim
satisfy the checkpoints.

 - Ian

> As it stands now, it is unclear as to areas of responsibility, which will
> result in lack of non-conformance by possibly all of the above. As a
> developer of a browser application, I would presume that either the plug-in,
> the accessibility application, the content provider or the operating system
> software should be providing most, if not all, of the requirements.
> 
> At this juncture, I would suspect that there will be less adoption of this
> specification then is desired. As mentioned above, clear, concise
> requirements must be given. If the requirements were stated in such a
> fashion that providing a mechanism to access the necessary data, would also
> aid is quicker adoption of the specification. For example, if the
> specification stated that the browser infrastructure must support a
> mechanism to allow the user to set 'whatever,' then the browser vendors
> could provide the underlying support and then different chromes could be
> provided based on the need of the user. Not all users will need or want the
> overhead (application size, footprint, etc.) needed to provide all of the
> requirements.

[snipped the rest for now]

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 20:45:03 UTC