Re: 5.3.7 background image support

[Sorry for the duplicate]

  Dear Elliotte Harold ,

The Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Mobile Web Best
Practices 1.0 published on 13 January 2006 Thank you for having taken the
time to review the document and to send us comments!

This message holds the disposition of the said comments on which the
Working Group has agreed. This disposition has been implemented in the new
version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060412/

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 3 May 2006. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a
specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If
such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to
raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director
during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C
Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group,
Philipp Hoschka
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/43C1712B.2070508@metalab.unc.edu
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/


=====

Your comment on [BACKGROUND_IMAGE_SU...:


Section 5.3.7 states:

[BACKGROUND_IMAGE_SUPPORT] Do not use background images unless you know 
the device supports them. (Normative)

I don't see any reasoning in the document to justify this one, and I 
can't think of any myself. Won;t a device that doesn't support 
background images simply ignore them without any detrimental effects? I 
can;t think of any examples in practice where the background image was a 
critical part of the content. This feels like it would degrade gracefully.

At a minimum, I would ask that this normative rule be explained more. 
But if there's no good explanation for this, then this rule could simply 
be dropped.


Working Group Resolution:
The group agreed this Best Practice wasn't very relevant and decided to
remove it.

----

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:13:55 UTC