W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Comments on Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, Draft 13 January 2006

From: <ville.karinen@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:38:05 +0200
Message-ID: <1137692285.43cfce7d6ec5e@www2.helsinki.fi>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Hello Dom

Lainaus Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>:

> As stated in the "Classes of products"  section [2], we're only dealing
> with "content as it gets delivered to a Web user agent". The way it is
> authored, adapted or proxied along the delivery chain is thus out of
> scope for our document, although we briefly explain where content
> adaptation fits in there [3].

Thank you for your answers, i guess i should have read the document more 
carefully, before commenting on it. Content adaptation is explained, 
indeed. And as i now read it from the different perspective, i think it's 
ok.
 
> Furthermore, a W3C Technical Report would not be the right place to
> present vendor-specific solutions for content adaptation.

I understand this. Maybe a reference to these techniques in:

3.1 Adaptation Implementation Model -->
"In Network adaptation is where..." 

would go? (if not - i still understand :-)
 
> In the meantime, is there a way to rephrase your comment in a way that
> would fit in the scope of our best practices?

The reference is the only thing i'd like to suggest anymore - but i fully 
understand if it would be against W3C:s document protocols. 

Thank for all of you working for better mobile web!

Kind Regards,
Ville Karinen

-- 
    Ville Karinen
    reply: Ville.Karinen a Helsinki.Fi
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~vkarinen /wap/index.wml
    http://4mobile.net
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:38:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 June 2012 12:13:30 GMT