Thread Subject: Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform"
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 10:05 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform""
- Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Yes - I did edit old version.
Nope - not intentional.
Comments below. (marked GV:)
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:55 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Concerns about our current
> definition of a"platform"
> You provided edits to the version in the 17Aug draft, not to
> the proposal I put forth. Was that your intention?
GV: Yes I did - but not intentionally.
> for me is what the platform provides that defines it as a
> platform (with what the bulk of applications use cementing
> that definition or countering it).
With such a definition,
> we can then place requirements on anything that is a platform
> (by that definition).
GV: Don't follow that. What I edited into the provision was just an
admission that some things serve as partial platforms. And that is in note
> Going into "partially", and "acting as", and "for those
> aspects of an application" complicates matters significantly.
> And I don't see what we gain by doing that. If something is
> trying to be a platform, then it should obey the platform rules.
GV: Again - don't follow. Your note 3 below says the same thing. But by
not having anything to that effect in the provision - the note contradicts
Your new draft is below -- with edits
collection of software components that runs on an underlying software or
hardware layer, and that provides a set of software services to
applications which allows them to be isolated, partially or completely,
from the underlying software or hardware layer.
* Note 1: For our purposes, it is those software components/services
provided to applications for the creation or manipulation of user
interfaces and user input - and that impact accessibility - that are
of concern for whether something is a platform or not. An
application offering a compute service, such as a 3d rendering
engine where a requesting application isn't using the software
components/services to create a user interface and interact with
the user, should not be considered to be acting as a "platform".
* Note 2: If applications typically connect directly to the
underlying layer, rather than relying solely on the platform
software components and services, then it is likely that the
software components in the middle are not acting as a "platform".
For example, a program which hosts plug-in's is not a platform if
the plug-in can directly access the underlying layer.
* Note 3: A particular software component may play the role of a
platform in some situations and not in others. Platforms can
include such things as Internet browsers, operating systems,
plug-ins to internet browsers or other software applications, and
under some situations, byte-code interpreted virtual environments,
and other "programming within another programming" environments.
- Next message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform""
- Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform""